The life, times, and writings of the Right Rev. Dr. Henry Phillpotts, Lord Bishop of Exeter

THE

Life, Times, and Writings

OF THE

RIGHT REV. DR. HENRY PHILLPOTTS,

LORD BISHOP OF EXETER.

BY THE REV. REGINALD N. SHUTTE, B.A.,

RECTOR OF S. MARY STEPS, EXETER, AND AUTHOR OF A NEW

CATENA ON S. PAULAS EPISTLES, LIFE OF

REV. HENRY NEWLANO,

ETC.

VOLUME I.

LONDON:
SAUNDERS, OTLEY, AND CO.

66, BROOK STREET, HANOVER SQUARE.

PREFACE.

|T will perhaps be expedted that I
fhould fay fomething as to the cir-
cumftances which have led to the
production of this work. And this
is the more neceflary fince fome writers have
commented upon my intentions in a way which,
if it raifes one's eftimate of their power of in
vention, fpeaks little for their fenfe of juftice.
To none of thefe comments have I thought it
needful to reply, but have refrained from ftating
my cafe until the appearance of the firft inftal-
ment of my work fhould give me a fuitable
opportunity for doing fo.

The circumftances which led to my becoming
the biographer of the Bifhop of Exeter are
briefly thefe. In the autumn of 1861 I re
ceived a letter from my publifhers — to whom I
was then an entire ftranger — inviting me to
undertake the preparation of a work to be en-

iv Preface.

titled, The Life, Times, and Writings of the Eijhop
of Exeter. I can truly fay that I was wholly
unprepared for this offer. But fuppofing that I
had declined it, would the projected work have
fallen to the ground ? I am not vain enough to
believe that it would. So that, in point of fad:,
I am only doing what fomebody elfe would have
done, if he had had the fame opportunity.

But it has been affumed that I have been
acting in defiance of the Bifhop's wifhes, and
this affumption has furnifhed the text for many
a homily at my expenfe. The thought proved
too overpowering for moft of my critics, who
could not bring themfelves to part with the
aflumption that was fo groundlefs, and yet fo
capable of being made effective.

The facts are fimply thefe. Having collected
the neceffary materials, and having done my beft
to afcertain that no biography was contemplated
by the Bifhop's family, or immediate friends, I
wrote to his Lordfhip, announcing the work
upon which I was engaged. My letter was
courteous and deferential. It is true that, al
though againft his Lordfhip's wifhes I would not
have perfifted in the work, I did not afk for his
co-operation in direct terms — for the treatment
which I had experienced at his hands in refei

Preface. v

ence to a previous publication forbade it — yet I
worded my letter in fuch a way that, while it
could convey no offence to a mind however
fenfitive, it was impoffible to miftakemy mean
ing. The Bifhop did not miftake it, for he in-
ftrudted his chaplain to fay in reply that " he
feels that he has no right to objed: to the under
taking," and, in a fubfequent letter from his
Lordfhip to myfelf, he fays, "you have an UN
DOUBTED RIGHT to publiflifuch a work'' Surely
this is explicit enough. If any objection is veiled
under thefe words, I can only lament that I have
not been able to difcover it. The Bifhop admits
my " UNDOUBTED RIGHT " to engage in the
undertaking ; and if he admits it, who has any
reafon to object? " So far," fays the Times*
" nothing can be plainer and more fimple than
the fubjedt-matter of the correfpondence." And
this is only doing me juftice.

But now the ingenuity of my critics begins to
difplay itfelf. The Times proceeds to aflert that
I did " not only want to write the Life of the
Biftiop of Exeter," but that I wanted " to write
it with the Bifhop's advice and affiftance." It
is a pleafant conceit, but, like many other things,

* Auguft 22, 1862.

vi Preface.

it will not bear examination. So far from my
looking for any affiftance from the Bifhop, I told
my publifhers, in the very firft letter I ever wrote
to them on the fubjeft, that I was confident that
his Lordfhip's co-operation could never be ob
tained. I went, indeed, a great deal further than
this, and in the fame letter added, " Perfonally
fpeaking, I jhould prefer 'writing independently of
any help from him." This is repeated in my fub-
fequent correfpondence with my publifhers and
others, and the tone of the Bifhop's reply to my
firft letter was not calculated to alter my opinion,
and caufe me to feek his aid. The truth is, the
Bifhop faid exactly what I wanted him to fay.
The utmoft I wifhed was that he mould not
object

And the reafon is obvious. If the Bimop had
entered heartily into my plan, and had handed
me his papers, and otherwife rendered me
material affiftance, the value of my work as an
independent hiftory would have been gone. It
would then have appeared that I was writing at
his Lordfhip's dictation, and with the defire of
conciliating his regard. To all intents and
purpofes it would have been a Life of the Bifhop
written by the Bifhop himfelf. However in-
terefting fuch a work might be, it would at leaft

Preface. vii

be open to the charge of partiality. Now, at all
events, my book is beyond fufpicion.

But I defired, it may be urged, " to have the
benefit of his Lordfhip's judgment on fome
doubtful and difficult points." It is perfectly
true that I did exprefs this defire ; but need it
therefore be aflumed — as my critics have fo
eagerly done — that thefe "doubtful and difficult
points " were fo numerous as to neceffitate a
recital by the Bifhop of the changes and chances
of his whole life ? In other words, when I wrote
this fentence, was I trying to entrap the Bifhop
into revealing to me matters of perfonal and
"private intereft, which otherwife I could not
have known? Such a belief could only have been
conceived by one who had no knowledge of the
Bifhop. I had already affured his Lordfhip that
my work would relate, almoft exclufively, to his
public life, and that all the requifite materials
were entirely within my reach. Whether I
fpoke truly this prefent volume will mow.
What then did I mean by the "doubtful and
difficult points?" On examining the Bifhop's
writings, I occafionally found that ftatements
and fadts were capable of more than one inter
pretation. My defire was to find the right one.
It would have been fatisfaftory to have learnt

viii Preface.

this from the Bifhop's own lips. As it is, I have
fpared nothing that labour and refearch could
effect to arrive at the true refult. I venture to
think that even my moft exacting critics will not
view this as militating againft my avowed defire
of writing an independent hiftory.

And now I come to a deteftable charge — I
ufe the word advifedly — that I defigned to pub-
lifh certain letters written by the Bifhop, without
his confent. The Times has dire&ly charged
me with having faid nothing about thefe letters
in the firft inftance, fo that I might have it in
my power hereafter to threaten the Bifhop with
their publication, in cafe he refufed to affift me. "
I can only regret that any one connected with
journalifm fhould have fo far degraded himfelf,
while meaning to difhonour me.

When my work was announced in the public
prints, I received offers of affiftance from various
quarters, and, amongft other things, fome letters
written by the Bifhop at different periods were
fent for my infpection. When I firft wrote to
the Bifhop my work had not been advertifed, and
I did not receive the letters for more than three
months afterwards. This, then, difpofes of the
Times. Not one of thefe letters was marked
" private," and, on perufal of them, I found that

Preface. ix

there were only a few extradts, relating either to
public events, or to theological criticifm, which
would be likely to intereft the general reader.
Had it not been for thefe letters the Bifliop would
have heard no thing more of me — fo little anxious
was I for his affiftance ; but immediately after
reading them I did what every honourable man
would do under the circumftances, I wrote to
his Lordflrip, faying that I thought it poffible
that feledions from them would be valuable as
well as interefting, and offering to wait upon
him to fubmit the extra&s, which I propofed to
ufe, for his approval.

I am aware, indeed, that a weekly print has
had a great deal to fay about the idea of my in
viting myfelf to bed and board at Bifhopftowe
for an unlimited period, but the writer feems to
think that there is no other way of fatisfacftorily
communicating with a bifliop except through
the medium of a good dinner. In his idea the
epifcopal heart only expands over a bottle of dry
old port. Had he lived in this diocefe as long
as I have, he would have known better, and
would be content to give up the dinner and bed,
if he could only command a quiet half-hour of
the Bifliop's time. And this was really all I
wanted — no great thing to afk for, confidering

x Preface.

that for eight years and a-half I have been bene-
ficed in his Lordfhip's cathedral city. Had the
Bifhop confented to fee me, my bufinefs need not
have detained him many minutes. I fhould
have read the paflages I propofed to ufe, (they
were very few,) and have afcertained his Lord
fhip's pleafure. If this was not an honeft courfe,
I know not what would have been. But in
reply to my propofal the Bifhop wrote to me
faying that he " declined altogether communicating
'with me on the matter'9 When he added that on
" feeing the letters" he would "tell me whether
he would allow the publication of them or not;'*
his Lordfhip failed to give me credit for that felf-
refpedt which it is the pride of every right-
minded man to poflefs. How was he to fee
them, if he would not communicate with me ?
Was I to fend them to his Lordfhip's chaplain or
fecretary to be dealt with in any way they might
think fit ? Few prudent men would have coun-
felled this ftep, and moft people would have ad-
vifed me to take the Bifhop at his word, and
attempt no further communication with him.
Had he not been my Bijhop I fhould certainly
have adopted this courfe ; but with an earnei
defire to fhow all deference to his Lordfhip, an<
not without a hope that he might be induced to

Preface. xi

exprefs himfelf lefs ftrongly towards me, I wrote
the following letter. It was only due to myfelf
to fet before him a ftatement of the cafe as it
affected my pofition with the public. As matters
have turned out, it would have been better if in
the firft inftance fome fuch letter as this had been

written : —

"Exeter, July 18, 1862.

" My Lord, — I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your
Lordfhip's letter of the I3th inftant, and to call your Lord-
fliip's attention to the following facts : —

" On the 2Oth of February laft I announced to your Lord-
fliip that I had been afked to write your Lordfhip's life, and
that I had undertaken to do fo.

" On the 25th of February your Lordfhip replied, through
Mr. Barnes, that you offered no objection, but that you de
clined to afford any help.

" Having collected a vaft mafs of materials, and among
them many letters of your Lordmip, I wrote on the nth of
July to offer to fubmit them to your Lordftiip before publi
cation.

"In your Lordfhip's reply of July 13 you decline altogether
to communicate with me on the matter.

" Upon the above facts I beg to fubmit to your Lordmip
that it had not occurred to me when I wrote my letter of the
nth inftant that if, on the one hand, I fubmitted to your
Lordmip all letters of your Lordmip in my poffeffion, but do
not receive, on the other, your Lordfhip's afliftance towards
fupplying myfelf with reliable matter, I (hall be in a very
unfavourable pofition with the public, becaufe it muft appear
that lam writing underyour Lordfhip's direction, while I am
not receiving from your Lordfhip the afliftance which can
alone make the book valuable. May I beg your Lordmip to
confider the pofition ? As I am able to look at it, it feems to

xii Preface.

me plain that if I cannot have your Lordfhip's free afliftance
I have no alternative but to fulfil my engagement with the
publifhers in the beft way I can.

" I have the honour to remain,

" Your Lordfhip's obedient fervant,

" REGINALD N. SHUTTE.
" The Lord Bimop of Exeter."

The only anfwer I received to this letter was
the copy of a Bill which the Bifhop had filed
in Chancery, to reftrain me from publifliing
any of thofe letters, or extracts from them, that
I never had any intention of publifhing againft
his wifhes ! Not a word had fallen from me
to lead to the fuppofition that I meant to ufe
this correfpondence without the Bifhop's con-
fent. In the letter in which I informed his
Lordfhip that they were in my pofleffion I dif-
tindtly acknowledged his right to fay whether
any portions of them fhould be publifhed or
not. All that my laft letter conveyed was, that
if he perfifted in his determination of not com
municating with me, I fhould not part with
the letters, but fhould go my own way. The
truth is that the moment I found that the
Bifhop would not communicate wi.h me, I
gave up all idea of the letters. They were not
in any way effential to my work. So that
when I told his Lordfhip that I had no alter-

Preface. xiii

native but to fulfil my engagement with the
publifhers in the beft way I could, I meant
him to underftand that no letters, or anything
elfe which he could control, would appear. On
reading my letters again I cannot fee that they
admit of any other fenfe. A fhort note ad-
drefled to me by the Bifhop's chaplain or lawyer
would have led me to explain my intentions,
if any explanation were wanted. The Biihop,
however, preferred to proceed according to pro-
cefs of law, and the energy of his movements
induced a portion of the public to believe that
I was about to publifh certain private letters
of his — a ftep which, in common with every
upright man, I fhould reprobate and abhor. I
can only emphatically affirm that this book
would never have been written had the Bifhop
objected, and that it was never my intention to
give to the world any letters that he might
have wifhed to remain unpublifhed.

This is the hiftory of the letters. The
Bifliop (I wifh to fay it without offence) afted
with precipitancy. There was nothing what
ever in any of my letters to juftify fuch a ftep
as an appeal to the Court of Chancery, without
further explanations. His Lordfhip ought to
have been very clear about my intentions be-

xiv Preface.

fore he expofed me to the odium of doing that
which every upright man would fhrink from.

I will only fay one word about the ftrudture
of this work. It relates exclufively (or nearly
fo), as I told the Bifhop in my firft letter, to his
Lordfhip's public life. It never formed any
part of my plan to interfere with the confi
dences of focial and domeftic intercourfe. This
part of the Bifhop's life I leave to fome other
biographer. A perufal of this volume will
fatisfy any one that I • have faithfully adhered
to my original programme. It was in my power
to have added to the work by the infertion of
jokes, fmart on dits, and tales of focial life.
Nothing, however, is given in this book which
need annoy the Bifhop, unlefs, indeed, he be
offended at honeft criticifm of his writings and
public acts. There are weighty confiderations
— certainly not connected with any gain to
myfelf — why this biography fhould appear
whilft the Bifhop is ftill among us. At pre-
fent it would be improper for me to fay what
thefe reafons are. I can only afk my readers,
therefore, to give me credit for acting for the
beft.

One word more. The mifapprehenfion that
prevails refpecting many important events of

Preface. xv

the Bifhop's life, makes me confident that this
book will not be without confiderable intereft
to a large clafs of readers ; but at the fame time
I do not difguife from myfelf the certainty
that it will not confirm the prejudices of
others. But however it may be received, this
much I can affirm, that with high refpedt for
the Bifhop it was undertaken, and that it has
been written without fear or favour.

R. N. S,

EXETER,

ijtb November^ 1862.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.

OUNDATION of the Biftiopric of Exeter. Cele
brated Bifhops of the Diocefe. Birth of Henry
Phillpotts. Account of his Family. Lived in the
fame houfe as George Whitfield. His early Edu
cation. Matriculation at Oxford. Univerfity Ca
reer. Profpeft of Advancement. Dr. Martin
Routh. Dr. Copleftone (Bifhop of Llandaff). Interval between
B.A. degree and taking Holy Orders. Twice Examiner of Candi
dates for Univerfity Honours. Ordained Deacon and Prieft. Mar
riage and Refignation of Fellowfhip. Offered Principalfliip of Hert
ford College. His fubfequent Degrees. Honorary Fellow of Mag
dalene College. Inftituted to Vicarage of Kilmerfdon. Prefented
to Living of Stainton-le-Street. Non-refidence. Preferment ac
counted for. Chaplain to Bifhop Barrington. Controverfy with
Dr. Lingard, the Roman Catholic Hiftorian. Prefented to Living
of Bifhop Middleham. Defcription of the Parilh. Prefented to
Reclory of Gatefhead. Account of the Parifh. Collated to the
Ninth Prebendal Stall in Durham Cathedral. Prefented to Living
of S. Margaret's, in Durham. Ill-feeling excited. Character as a
Parifh Prieft. Preached at Anniverfary of Sons of the Clergy, in
S. Paul's Cathedral. Some Account of the Sermon. Collated to
the Second Stall in Durham Cathedral . I

CHAPTER II.

Ancient Provifion for the Poor. Various Enactments. Vagrancy
prevented. The Law of Settlement. Difadvantages of Exifting
Syftem. Propofals for remedying them. Mr. Sturges Bourne's
Motion. Mr. Phillpotts oppofed to it. His Letter to Mr. Sturgcs

b

xviii Contents.

Bourne. The exifting Law not complex. Expenfe incurred by
Parilhes in litigation and removals. Debafmg effect of Paupers re
cording that they have acquired a Settlement. Injuftice of returning
upon Parifhes aged Paupers who have lived elfewhere. The real
Grievance ftated. Danger of drawing Agricultural Labourers into
Towns. Removal of Paupers to their legal Settlement, and fepa-
ration from their friends and connexions. Character of Over-
leers. General Merits of Mr. Phillpotts' Letter to Mr. Sturges
Bourne 18

CHAPTER III.

Letter of Mr. Phillpotts to Lord Grey on the Roman Catholic
Queftion. Remarks on his Style. Lord Grey's Motion for Repeal
of the Teft Act. Mr. Phillpotts' Motives in addreffmg him. His
-Qualifications for the talk. Inducements for the Clergy to mingle
in Politics at the commencement of this century. The Tone of Mr.
Phillpotts' Earlier Writings accounted for. Hardfhip of the Teft.
How it might have been obviated. Roman Catholic Writers anxious
to mow that there is very little difference of Doctrine between
the Churches of England and Rome. Difhonefty of the Attempt.
Summary of the chief Differences in Doctrine between the two
Churches, Archbifhop Wake and the Doctors of the Sorbonne.
The Archbifhop improperly quoted by Lord Grey. An Account
of his Attempt to reconcile the Anglican and Gallican Churches.
Du Pin's " Commonitorium." The Real Prefence vindicated. The
Object of Lord Grey's Speech on the Teft Act. The Source from
whence he derived the greater part of his Theological Arguments.
His Lordfhip's Remarks upon the i8th Article of Religion and the
Athanafian Creed. Intrepid Conduct of Mr. Phillpotts. Defence
of the Athanafian Creed. The Condemnatory Claufes. Character
of the Letter to Lord Grey. Mr. Phillpotts not an entire Exclu-
fionift 28

CHAPTER IV.

Meetings of diftrefTed Manufacturers at Birmingham and Leeds.
A Reform Meeting at Manchefter charged by the Yeomanry Ca
valry. A great number of People fabred and trodden under foot.
Several Lives loft. Indifcreet Hafte of the Magiftrates. Their
Conduct approved by Government. Letter of Thanks from the

Contents. xix

Prince Regent. Feeling of the Country. Subfcription Lifts for
the Sufferers. Addrefs of the Lord Mayor and Citizens to the
Prince Regent. His Reply. Indignation Meetings held in the
Provinces. The Durham Meeting. The Refolutions. A Decla
ration againft the Meeting drawn up and figned. The Name of
Mr. Phillpotts among the fignatures. An Abftraft of the Declara
tion. Mr. Phillpotts addrefles a Letter to the Freeholders of the
County of Durham. His motive for doing fo. Whether it was
neceflary for him to come forward. The real Objeft of his Pam
phlet. The Proceedings of the Durham Meeting conducted with
Propriety. Mr. Phillpotts' farcaftic Defcription of it. His State
ment of the Proceedings of the Meeting. Attack upon Mr.
Lambton. Its Injuftice. EffecT: of the Letter to the Freeholders
of the County of Durham. Anonymous Anfwers to it. Article
in the Edinburgh Review. A cheap Edition of it. Mr. Phillpotts'
Statement in reply. Its Character. Mr. Phillpotts dreaded as an
adverfary. His Defcription of " Liberals. " His Eftimate of the
Reviewer •. . . 40

CHAPTER V.

Further Preferment of Mr. Phillpotts. His Competence, and
proper ufe of it. The Living of Stanhope. Held by Three Pre
lates in fucceffion. Mr. Phillpotts refigns his Stall in Durham Ca
thedral. A Defcription of Stanhope. Mr. Phillpotts builds a
Reftory-houfe. Reminifcences of his Incumbency. Diligence in
Parochial Duties. An a&ive Magiftrate. His Legal Abilities . 58

CHAPTER VI.

Return of Queen Caroline to England, and the Proceedings con-
fequent upon it. Gave occafton to a Pamphlet by Mr. Phillpotts.
Injudicious Condudl of the Miniftry. Popular Feeling excited
againft them. Meetings held in various parts of the Country. All
Ranks took part in them. The Durham Meeting. The Speakers.
The Addrefs. Reference in it to Spirit of Difcontent exifting in the
Country. Impropriety of this. A Counter-Addrefs agreed upon
by the Clergy, Their Juftification for taking this ftep. Mr. Phill
potts the Propofer of it. Hoftile Feeling manifefted againft the

xx Contents.

Clergy. Not confined to the Lower Orders, The Northumber
land Meeting at Morpeth. Lord Grey's Speech. His Remarks
upon the Clergy of Durham. Letter from Mr. Phillpotts to his
Lordfhip. The Peril of coming forward. The Clergy defended
againft the Imputation of Underhand Conduct. The Treatment
of Mr. Liddell at the Meeting. Remarks on the Prefs. Improper
Ufe of the expreffion, " The People," expofed. Difmgenuous Arts
of " Liberal" Statefmen. Defcription of Lord Grey's Conduct by
Mr. Phillpotts. His Behaviour in Parliament, in reference to the
Queen's Guilt, compared with his Statements at the Durham
Meeting. What his Conduct ought to have been had he believed
in the Queen's perfect Innocence. An Injudicious Statement in
his Speech. Severe Remarks upon it by Mr. Phillpotts. An un
happy Quotation of Holy Scripture by his Lordfhip. Impreflion
created by the Letter of Mr. Phillpotts. General Tone of it. Not
to be judged by the Standard of the Prefent Day. Confultation of
Whig Lawyers to afcertain if it was Libellous. Attack upon the
Clergy by the Durham Chronicle. Action for Libel againft the
Publilher. Mr. Brougham's Defence. Its Character. Conviction
of the Defendant 6t

CHAPTER VII.

Further Attacks upon the Clergy of Durham. Peculiarly obnoxious
to the Enemies of the Church. Article in the Edinburgh Review.
Dr. Phillpotts fingled out by Name. Defcription of the Article.
Reafons for a Reply. Letter by Dr. Phillpotts to Francis Jeffrey,
Efq., the reputed Editor. His Defence of the Doctrine of the Real
Prefence. Expofure of the hiftorical Inaccuracy of the Reviewer.
Improper ufe by him of the Cafe of Williams. Reference to Wil
liams in a former Letter to Lord Grey denied by Dr. Phillpotts.
Extreme Forbearance which he had mown towards him. Refuta
tion of the Charge of not having caufed the Bells to be tolled at
the Queen's Death. The difmgenuous Way in which the Reviewer
performed his Tafk. The Defendant's Libel compared with the
Defcription given of it by the Reviewer. Remarks on the Way in
which the Edinburgh Reviezv was conducted. Mr. Jeffrey's Reply.
Nothing faicl which affects the Merits of the Cafe. A flinging Re
proof by Dr. Phillpotts. Offer of an Irifh Bifhopric by Lord
Liverpool declined. His Promife to the Bifhop of Durham . 79

Contents. xxi

CHAPTERVIII.

Mr. Charles Butler's Book. The Anfwer of Dr. Phillpotts.
Motives for undertaking it. Odium inevitable to it. No Deiire to
fee the Reflections of Roman Catholics ftrengthened. The Diffi
culty and Unpopularity of the Tafk. The Courage of Dr. Phill
potts. Value of his Letters to Mr. Butler. Devotion to the
Virgin Mary and other Saints. Roman Catholic Explanations of
the Way in which they receive the Prayers of Men. Their Futility.
Doubtful Character of certain Roman Saints. An Example.
Image-wormip. S. Thomas Aquinas contrafted with the Second
Council of Nice. Awkward Dilemma. Specious Attempts of
Roman Catholic Writers to difguife the Doctrine of Image-worfhip
mown (i) from the Theory of their Church, and (2) from its
Practice. Examples. Summing-up of the Queftion. Dr. Lin-
gard's Unfaithfulnefs in Quotation. Attempts of Roman Catholic
Writers to foften down the Doctrine of Purgatory. Dr. Milner's
Definition of it. A True Statement of it. Authority attributed
by Bellarmine to Vifions in Support of Purgatory. Summarily dif-
pofed of by Dr. Phillpotts. S. Auguitine improperly claimed in
favour of Purgatory. Means of relieving thofe who are confined
there. Effect of the Doctrine of Vicarious Satisfaction. Declara
tions of the Bible and the Church of Rome contrafted. Indulgences.
The Ground on which the Doctrine refts. The Practice of the
Roman Church. Confeffion and Abfolution. A Clergyman com
pelled to give Evidence of a Confeffion in a Court of Juftice. Im
propriety of this mown by Dr. Phillpotts. S. Auguftine and
Pelagius. Dr. Phillpotts' Statement of Doctrine of Real Prefence.
Defective, as ignoring the Objective Prefence. Archbifhop Wake
defended againft Imputation of favouring Roman Doctrines. The
Affertion that Bifhop Hoadley had many Followers among the
Clergy refuted. The Power of the Pope examined. Examples of
its Exercife. The Treatment of Heretics. Illuftration of the Doc
trine that Oaths are not to be kept with them. The Spirit of the
Papacy unchanged, as proved by the Recall of the Jefuits and the
Revival of the Inquifition. Character of Dr. Phillpotts' Letters to
Mr. Butler .91

xxii Contents.

CHAPTER IX.

Supplemental Letter to Mr. Butler. Its Origin. Dr. Kelly's
Attempt to explain away Prayers addrefled to the Virgin. His So-
phiftry expofed. Examples of Blafphemous Prayers. Image-worfhip
evaded by Roman Catholic Writers. Miraculous Images. The
Bambino and Winking Virgin of Ancona. Profufenefs of thefe
Wonders. Their authority fupported by Official Documents. Dr.
Murray's View of Indulgences. His Difingenuous Dealing. An
Example. The Length of Time for which Indulgences are avail
able. Difhonefty of Roman Catholic Writers. Confeffion. Fla
grant Example of its Abufe. Prohibition of the Free Ufe of the
Scriptures. Fearful Terms in which they are fpoken of by Roman
Catholic Writers. The Power of the Pope. Attempt of Dr. Doyle
to foften it down expofed. Danger of the Do&rine in a country
like Ireland. The Interference of Government in the Appointment
of Irifh Roman Catholic Bimops. Allowed by the Pope, but re
pudiated by the Roman Catholic Bimops themfelves. Prevarication
of Dr. Doyle. The Oath taken by Roman Catholic Bimops to the
Pope. Its Origin. Canonization of Gregory VII. The Third
Canon of the Fourth Council of Lateran. Attempt of Roman
Catholics to repudiate it expofed. The Cafe of John Hus fully con-
fidered. The Doctrine of Exclufive Salvation as taught by the
Church of Rome. Its Danger. Difingenuous Ufe of the i8th
Article of Religion by Roman Catholic Writers. An Expofition of
it. Peril of admitting Roman Catholics to a Share in the Legiflature.
Pretenfions of the Roman Church as ftated by Dr. Doyle. Pofition
of Members of the Eflablimed Church according to the Roman
Theory. Examples of the Overbearing Spirit of the Roman Church.
Appeal to the more Moderate Members of that Communion. Efti-
mate of Dr. Doyle 118

CHAPTER X.

Roman Catholic Emancipation. Importance of the Queftion.
Reafons for Penal Enactments againft Roman Catholics. An Enu
meration of them. Their Harfhnefs. Earlieft Adls of Conceffion.
How received by the Roman Catholics. The Petition of 1789.
Remarks upon it. Mr. Mitford's Motion. Conduft of Mr. Pitt

Contents. xxiii

and Mr. Fox. The former favourable to Conceffion with adequate
Security. Conduct of Roman Catholics. Lord Fitz- William.
Hopes entertained by them from .his Appointment to Lord Lieu
tenancy of Ireland. Hoflility of the King. Recall of Lord Fitz-
William. Popular Excitement. The College of Maynooth founded.
The Union of Ireland with Great Britain. An Expectation that
further Conceffions would be granted to the Roman Catholics.
Attitude of the King. DifTolution of Mr. Pitt's Miniftry. Minif-
ters charged with having caufed the King's Affliction. Mr. Pitt's
Promife. Lord Grenville efpoufes the Caufe of Roman Catholic
Relief. The Opinion of the Country againft it. Mr. Grattan. A
further Grant to Maynooth. Mr. Grattan's Motion. The National
Reprefentative AiTembly in Dublin fuppreffed by Government.
Another Motion by Mr. Grattan. Hopes of the Roman Catholics.
Acceffion of Mr. Canning and Lord Wellefley to their Party. A
Motion for the early Confideration of their Claims carried. The
Debate of the 25th of February, 1813. The Propofed Conceffions
ill received by the Roman Catholics. Letter of the Roman Catholic
Prelates affembled in Dublin. Faffing of the Duke of Norfolk's Bill.
Violence of the Roman Catholic Board in Ireland. Mr. O'Conneil.
Motions in Parliament. Excited State of Ireland. Sir Robert Inglis
on the Danger of further Conceffions to the Roman Catholics.
Further Motions in Parliament. Supported by Lord Caftlereagh,
and oppofed by Mr. Peel. Earl Grey's Bill to relieve Roman
Catholics from taking the Declaratory Oaths. Death of Mr. Grattan.
Irreparable Lofs to the Roman Catholic Party. Bill for Roman
Catholic Relief carried in the Houfe of Commons. Thrown out
in Houfe of Lords. Outrages and Famine in Ireland. Mr. Can
ning's Bill for Conceffion carried in the Houfe of Commons, but
rejected by the Lords. Continuation of Difturbances in Ireland.
Further Motions in Parliament. The Roman Catholic Aflbciation in
Ireland referred to in the King's Speech. Mr. Goulburn's Bill for
its Suppreffion. Mr. Brougham's Defence of it. The Motion
carried, and the Bill pafled by both Houfes. Further Motions in
Parliament. The Declaration of the Duke of York againft the
Roman Catholics. Opinion of Lord Eldon. Strong Feeling in the
Country againft further Conceffion. Sir F. Burdett's Motion in
1827 143

xxiv Contents.

CHAPTER XI.

Dr. Phillpotts' Firft Letter to Mr. Canning. His Inducement for
entering upon the Roman Catholic Queftion. Securities a Part of
every Roman Catholic Relief Bill. Mr. Canning himfelfan Advo
cate for them. Gradual Departure from Original Principles. The
Menacing Attitude of the Roman Catholics. An Anecdote in Illuf-
tration of Mr. Canning's Retroceflion. The Bill of 1 825 confidered.
Its Securities compared with thofe of 1813. Its Inferiority to
Previous Bills. Exceffive Deference mown to Roman Catholics.
Infolence of the Irifh Roman Catholic Aflbciation. No Voice
allowed to the Sovereign in the Appointment of Roman Catholic
Biihops. A Board of Commiflioners propofed to certify the King of
the Loyalty of the Bifhops-elect. Compofition of the Board ridi
culed by Dr. Phillpotts. The propofed Way of dealing with Bulls
and other Inftruments from Rome. Summary of the Bill. Mr.
Canning's Conduct defcribed 173

CHAPTER XII.

Dr. Phillpott's Firft Letter to Mr. Canning continued. The
General Character of Mr. Canning's Speech in fupport of the Roman
Catholic Relief Bill of 1 82 5. The Oath againft Tranfubftantiation
aflailed. The Arguments of thofe who defired its Repeal. Their
Fallacy expofed. The True Statement of the Cafe. Anfwer of
Dr. Phillpotts to Mr. Canning's Remarks on Tranfubftantiation.
Advantage of {electing that Doctrine as a Teft. Treatment to which
Oaths of Allegiance to Temporal Sovereigns are obnoxious at the
hands of Roman Catholics. The Oath of 3 James I. The Gun
powder Treafon not the only Caufe of it. Objections againft the
Athanafian Creed. Mr. Canning's Ufe of it admirably illuftrated
by Dr. Phillpotts. Object of the Creed explained. Doctrines of
Roman Catholics render them unfit to legiflate for Eftablifhed Church.
Fallacy of fuppofing that Roman Catholic Laymen, if admitted
into Parliament, would not bufy themfelves with Ecclefiaftical
Queftions. Doctrine of Abfolution enforced. The Roman Catholic
Doctrine of the Merit of Good Works. How ufed by Mr. Canning.
Calvinifts and Roman Catholics contrafted. The Pope's Supremacy
not merely a Spiritual Queftion. Specious Arguments of Roman
Catholics. Different Foundations of Papal Authority in different

Contents. xxv

Countries. The Council of Florence. Doctrine of Papal Supremacy
not likely to receive much Favour in England. Danger of its Recep
tion in Ireland. The Bulls " Unam fanctam " and " Unigenitus."
The Peril of admitting to a Share in the Legiflature thofe who hold
the Doctrine. The Pope determines the Point at which the Allegi
ance of Subjects to their Sovereign ceafes. The Fourth Lateran
Council on the Depofition of Kings. Dr. Phillpotts fully juftified
in his Remarks upon the Pope's Supremacy 184

CHAPTER XIII.

The Letter to Mr. Canning continued. The Errors of the Roman
Catholics charged upon " our Perfecution." The excited ftate of the
Country caufed the wildeft Statements to be received. Extract from
Speech of Mr. Grattan. The Cry of Perfecution deflitute of all
Foundation. Shown by reference to the Laitfs Directory. Extracts
from that Work, mowing the Gratitude of Roman Catholics for the
Conceflions which had been made to them. The Rapid Strides made
by that Body in England. An Account of their Hierarchy, Colleges,
Monafteries, and Convents. Dr. Phillpotts expofes the Difhonefty
of the Cry of Perfecution. Examples. The Power of the Prieft-
hood in Ireland. Its Abufe. " The Prieft's Curfe." Conduft of
the Roman Catholic Bifhops. A Teft fuggefted by Dr. Phillpotts in
place of Denial of the Doctrine of Tranfubflantiation. Difficulty of
coming to an Arrangement with the Roman Catholics defcribed by
Lord Eldon. Dr. Phillpotts' later Opinion of his fuggefted Teft.
His Regret that it had never been changed from a Speculative to a
Practical Form. A more Elaborate Scheme of Legiflation on this
Subject propofed by Dr. Phillpotts. A Defcription of it. Con-
clufion of Firft Letter to Mr. Canning. Its Effect upon that Statef-
man. Opinion of the Edinburgh Review. Conduct of Mr. Can
ning's Friends 204

CHAPTER XIV.

Rapid Sale of Firft Letter to Mr. Canning. The Sudden Change
in that Statefman's Views. Dr. Phillpotts' Second Letter to him.
An Unguarded Expreffion. The Attitude of the King in reference
to the Roman Catholic Queftion. Mr. Canning's Accommodation

xxvi Contents.

of himfelf to the new Order of Things. Dr. Phillpotts' Remarks
upon it. Reflections on the Rapidity of the Change. Mr. Canning's
carelefs Treatment of the Coronation Oath. The Real Obligation
of that Oath defcribed. The Reafon why Lord Kenyon gave Dr.
Phillpotts the Letters of George III. Dr. Phillpotts not averfe to
Conceffion to the Roman Catholics with adequate Securities. The
Idea of Securities ridiculed by Mr. Canning. Inconfiftent with the
Tone of his earlier Policy. A Comparifon. Effeft of Dr. Phillpotts'
Two Letters to Mr. Canning. Their Tone. The Author vilified
by Anonymous Writers 231

CHAPTER XV.

The Letters of George III, to Lord Kenyon. Motives for their
Publication under the Editorlhip of Dr. Phillpotts. His Judgment
in publifhing them much queftioned. The Neceffity of fome Expla
nation. Dr. Phillpotts' Letter to an Englifh Layman on the Coro
nation Oath. The Refult of a Comparifon of the various Forms of
Coronation Oath. The Edinburgh Review on the Letters of George
III. Remarks on the Conduft of Mr. Jeffrey. The King a Legif-
lator. As fuch, he is bound by his Coronation Oath. Argument
of Opponents, drawn from cafe of Charles I, refuted. The Oath
not made to the People as reprefented by Parliament. The Commons
excluded from the Coronation. The Clergy are Parties to this Oath.
Ufe of this made by the Advocates of Roman Catholic Relief. Dr.
Phillpotts the Panegyrift of William III. Popular Opinion that
Pledges of Conceffion to the Roman Catholics were given at the
Union. Its Falfity fhown. Mr. Pitt's Conduft in reference to
Roman Catholic Relief. Mr. Burke's Opinion on the fame Subject.
Dr. Phillpotts not averfe to all Conceffion. The Neceffity of ade
quate Securities. A Change of Sentiment charged upon him. Its
Falfity. The far-fighted Policy of the Roman Catholic Clergy.
Eftimate of Dr. Phillpotts' Letter. Its General Tone . . 240

CHAPTER XVI.

The Death of Lord Liverpool, and its Effect upon the Roman
Catholic Queftion. Miniflerial Difficulties. Mr. Canning appointed
Premier. His Death. Lord Goderich's Adminiftration. The Duke
of Wellington forms a Cabinet. Repeal of the Teft and Corporation

Contents. xxvii

A6b. Immediately followed by a Motion to remove Roman
Catholic Difabilities. Alarming State of Ireland. Hoftility of. the
Roman Catholics to the Adminiftration of the Duke of Wellington.
The Irifh Aflbciation. Rumours of intended Conceffion to the
Roman Catholics. Subject referred to in the King's Speech. Alarm
and Indignation of the Country. Minifters denounced. The Plans
of the Duke of Wellington too well laid to be fuccefsfully oppofed.
Condu6l of the King. Effect of the Meafure on his Title to the
Throne. Views of the Supporters of it. Remarks of Mr. Brougham.
Difficulty of the Pofition acknowledged by the Duke of Wellington.
Mr. Peel's Motion for removing Roman Catholic Difabilities.
Anxiety of the Public to hear the Debate. Paffing of the Bill.
Symptoms of Difaffe&ion in the Cabinet. Difmiflal of Sir Charles
Wetherall. The Bill carried up to the Lords and pafled. Scene in
the Houfe. The Royal AfTent given. Conduft of the King.
Termination of this Memorable Conteft. Lord Eldon's Prophetic
Words. Remarks upon the Paffing of the Bill 253

CHAPTER XVII.

Dr. Phillpotts appointed Dean of Chefter. Suit in the Eccleliaflical
Court againft one of the Prebendaries. Ability difplayed by Dr.
Phillpotts. Accufed of having changed his Opinion on the Roman
Catholic Queftion. Odium excited by the Charge. Article in the
Edinburgh Review. The Falfity of its Allegations mown. Dr.
Phillpotts not a Clerical Agitator. His Vote for Mr. Peel at the
Oxford Election of 1829. Petition from the Dean and Chapter of
Chefter againft Roman Catholic Relief Bill. Letter to Dr. Ellerton.
Remarks of the Times. Motives which guided Dr. Phillpotts in
voting for Mr. Peel. His Opinion on the Roman Catholic Queftion
unchanged. Mr. Peel's Change of Sentiment. Hard to eftimate
it aright at the Time. Fury of the Clergy. Combination of High
and Low Church againft Mr. Peel. The Vote of Dr. Phillpotts
given with pain. Eftrangement from Old Friends. Mr. Peel's
Rejection. Satire and Rude Caricatures. Specimen of Verfes.
The Conduct of Dr. Phillpotts in reference to the Roman Catho
lic Queftion in 1812. Not an Advocate for Entire Exclufion.
Meeting of the Clergy and Refolution. His Amendment. His
Views continued unchanged. Reafon of the Malice of his Ad-
verfaries 267

xxviii Contents.

CHAPTER XVIII.

Dr. Phillpotts appointed Bifhop of Exeter. His Eleftion by the
Chapter. Petition of the Inhabitants of Stanhope againft that living
being held in commendam with the Bilhopric. Great Excitement
in the Country. The Petition confidered. Stanhope had pre-
vioufly been held in commendam by three Prelates. Spoliation of
the See of Exeter at the Reformation. Examples of Bifhops of
Exeter who had held Livings in commendam. If a Living were to
be held with Bifhopric, fpecial reafons why it mould be Stanhope.
Dr. Phillpotts refufed to accept the See of Exeter, unlefs he were
permitted to hold Stanhope. Sir James Graham's Notice of Mo
tion. Change of Government. New Miniflry refufe to allow Dr.
Phillpotts to hold Stanhope. The hardmip confefTed. Promife of
Further Preferment. Manner in which the arrangement was carried
out. Petition of Clergy of Exeter againft the Appointment of Dr.
Phillpotts to that See. His alleged Change of Sentiment on the
Roman Catholic Queftion. Exculpatory Statement by Sir H.
Hardinge. The charge revived by Lord Radnor. Appeal of the
Bifhop to the Duke of Wellington. His Grace's Reply, fully excul
pating him from the Charge 282

CHAPTER XIX.

Dr. Phillpotts confecrated Bifhop of Exeter. Does Homage to
the King. Arrival in Exeter. His Reception by the Mayor and
Chamber. The Bifhop's Reply to their Congratulations. His In-
ftallation. Firft Sermon at the Cathedral. The Living of Tregony.
Collated to a Stall at Durham. Meeting of Parliament. The
Bifhop takes his Seat. His Firft Speech in the Houfe of Lords.
The Parifh of Woodbury. The firft Piece of Preferment at the dif-
pofal of the Bifhop. Tour in Cornwall. Parliamentary Seffion.
Arrives at Ilfracombe. Vifits the Scilly Iflands, and confirms there.
Anniverfary Meeting at Exeter of the Society for the Propagation of
the Gofpel in Foreign Parts. The Bifhop's Speech. Increafed
Circulation of the Bible. Tranquil State of the Diocefe, Lending
Libraries. Condition of the Scilly Iflands. King's Letter for the
Society for the Propagation of the Gofpel. Rumour of Redudion
of Annual Grant to that Society 296

Contents. xxix

CHAPTER XX.

The Biftiop goes to London. Lord King's Motion on the Pre-
fcription Bill (Tithes). His Attack upon the Bench of Bifhops.
Followed by the Lord Chancellor. Excited State of the Country on
the Subject of Reform. Menacing Language towards the Houfe of
Lords. The Reform Bill thrown out by the Lords. Outrages in
the Provinces. Brutal Attack on the Marquis of Londonderry.
Inflammatory Articles in the Public Prints. The Bifhops the fpecial
Objefts of Attack. Extrad from the Times. Dauntlefs Conduct
of the Bifhop of Exeter. His Reply to Lord King's Attack. Earl
Grey's infulting Rejoinder. The Bifhop's Reply. Conclufion of
the Difcuflion. The Bifhop of Durham burnt in Effigy. The
Bifhop of London threatened. The Parifh of Clerkenwell. Excited
State of Exeter. Popular Agitators. Anticipated Riot. The Yeo
manry Cavalry called out. Addrefs of the' Exeter Clerical Club
prefented to the Bifhop 309

CHAPTER XXI.

The Return of the Biftiop to Exeter. Anniverfary of the Devon
and Exeter Central Schools. Service at the Cathedral, and Sermon
by the Biftiop. Meeting at the Guildhall. The Bifhop's Speech-
His Firfl Ordination. Neglect of Ember Seafons. Attention to the
Affairs of his Diocefe. Prefentation of his Eldeft Son to a Living.
Difpute with the Parifhioners of Stoke Damerel, Devonport, about
a Burial-ground. Dr. Lufhington confulted. A Veftry Meeting of
the Parifhioners. Libellous Refolutions pafTed. The Bifhop applies
to Court of King's Bench. A Rule obtained to mow Caufe why a
Criminal Information mould not be filed againft the Chairman.
Arguments of Counfel againft the Rule. It is made abfolute. 322

CHAPTER XXII.

The Reform Bill. Impatience of the Country. Second Read
ing of the Bill in the Commons. The Bifhop remains at Exeter.
Freedom of the City prefented to him. End of the firft Year of his
Epifcopate. Opening of the Year 1832. The Reform Queftion.
Bill carried in the Commons. The Minifterial Plan of Education
for Ireland. DifTatisfaftion of the Roman Catholics. The Kildare

xxx Contents.

Street Society. Agitation in Ireland. Seditious Addrefs of one of
the Leaders. Infatuation of Englifh Statefmen. Real Objedl of the
Agitators to exclude Religious Inftrudlion from Schools. The
Rhemifh and Douay Verfions of the Scriptures. Feeling of the Au
thorities in Rome in reference to the Educational Syftem in Ireland.
Circular Letter from the Pope. EfFeft of it upon the People of
Ireland. NeglecT: and Ignorance of the Scriptures in that Country.
Infamous Treatment of them. Indignation of the Epifcopal Bench
at the Conduct of Government. Conduit of the Bifhop of Exeter.
His Forebodings of the Mifchievous Confequences of the Bill. His
Speech in the Houfe of Lords. EffecT: of it. Lord Radnor's Re
marks upon the Bifhop. Lord King refers again to the Parifh of
Woodbury. The Bifhop's Explanations ...... 330

VCHAPTER XXIII.

Anxiety as to the Fate of the Reform Bill in the Houfe of Lords.
Rumoured Intention of creating new Peers. Defection of Lords
Harrowby and Wharncliffe. The " Waverers." The Bill carried.
The Royal AfTent. The Bifhop of Exeter a Strenuous Opponent of
it. His Intrepid Condu6l. Abandonment of the Caufe by fome of
the Bilhops. Defcription of the Bifhop of Exeter's Speech. Anxiety
to hear the Debate. Excitement throughout the Country. The
Bifhop's Speech againft the Bill. Importance of Publication of Par
liamentary Debates. Conduft of the Editors of Newfpapers. The
Bifhop's Speech attacked by the Times. Charged with Change of
Sentiment on the Roman Catholic Queftion. Lord Durham ufes
Violent Language towards the Bifhop. He is called to Order. He
repeats his Charge. The Bifhop's Reply. The Duke of Buckingham
declares that Extracts from a letter of his to the King had appeared
in the Times, as ftated by the Bimop. Indignant Speech of Earl
Grey. Attack upon the Bifhop. Exultation of the Radical Portion
of the Prefs. No Real Explanation given of the Appearance of the
Letter. Injudicious Condud of Minifters. The Bifhop figns the
Duke of Wellington's Proteft againft the Reform Bill. Great Un
popularity in his Diocefe. He returns to Exeter. His Preaching.
Sets out on a Confirmation Tour through South Devon. Holds an
Ordination at Exeter. Leaves for London to attend Seffion of Par
liament 365

Contents. xxxi

CHAPTER XXIV.

Reform Meeting at Exeter. Three Groans for the Bifhop. Vio
lent Conduct of the People of Exeter. Minifterial Plan of Education
in Ireland. Uncompromifing Oppofition of the Bifhop. Lord
Belhaven's Petition. The Bifhop's Remarks upon it. Separation of
Religious from Secular Inftruftion denounced. Meaning of Moral
Inftru&ion. The Biftiop attacked by the Lord Chancellor on the
fubje6l of the Duke of Buckingham's Letter to the King. Explana
tions by the Bifhop. Violent Language of Lord Grey. The Bifhop
entreats that the Difcuflion may not be continued. He revives it
himfelf two days later. Imprudence of the Step. He repeats his
former Statement, with further Explanations. He maintains that
Lord Grey underftood the Matter in the fame way as himfelf. Re
turns to Exeter. Engages a Villa at Teignmouth. Preaches at Wol-
borough 398

CHAPTER XXV.

Appearance of the Cholera in Exeter. Difgraceful Condition of
the Principal Cemetery. The Order in Council for providing Spe
cial Burial-grounds not applicable to Exeter. Offer of a Field on S.
David's Hill for Interment of Cholera Patients. DifTatisfaftion of the
Parifhioners. Shocking Scene at a Funeral. Committee appointed
to felecl a fuitable Spot. The Bifhop applied to for his Licence. His
Reply. Much Time loft. The Bifhop unjuftly blamed for the Delay.
Bury Meadow appropriated as a Cholera Burying-ground. The
Bifhop grants his Licence. A Day for Prayer and Humiliation ap
pointed. Special Service at the Cathedral. The Cholera abates. A
Day appointed for Thankfgiving. The Bifhop preaches at the Cathe
dral. Meeting at the Guildhall to prefent a Teftimonial to the
Medical Men. The Bifhop propofes the Refolutions. His high Praife
of the Conduct of the Medical Men. Cenfured for having been
abfent from Exeter during Ravages of the Cholera. His Abfence
explained 405

CHAPTER XXVI.

Confirmation Tour. Confecration of Bedford Chapel. The Bifhop's
Letter to the Mayor on the Queftion of poftponing it. The Bifhop

xxxii Contents.

prefents to a Living by *' lapfe." Remarks on it. The Precentorfhip
of Exeter Cathedral. Further Promotion of the Bifliop's Son. The
Bifhop and his Family return to Exeter from Teignmouth. Anni-
verfary of Society for Propagating the Gofpel in Foreign Parts.
Ordination. Clofe of the Second Year of Epifcopate . . . 414

APPENDIX.

A. Chronological Lift of the Bifhops of Exeter . . . . 418

B. Oath to the Pope taken by Roman Catholic Prelates . 420

C. Oath to be taken by 3 James I. c. 4. s. 1 8 .... 422

Life of the Bifhop of Exeter.

CHAPTER I.

Foundation of the Bijhopric of Exeter. Celebrated BIJhops of
the Dioceje. Birth of Henry Phillpotts. Account of his
Family. Lived in the fame houfe as George Whitfield. His
early Education. Matriculation at Oxford. Univerjity Ca
reer. Profpett of Advancement. Dr. Martin Routh. Dr.
Copleftone (Bijhop of Llandaff). Interval between B.A. de
gree and taking Holy Orders. Twice Examiner of Candidates
for Vniverfity Honours. Ordained Deacon and Prieft. Mar
riage and Reftgnation of Fellowjhip. Offered Principaljhip
of Hertford College. His fubfequent Degrees. Honorary
Fellow of Magdalene College. Instituted to Vicarage of Kil-
merfdon. Prefented to Living of Stainton-le-Street. Non-
refidence. Preferment accounted for. Chaplain to Bijhop
Barrington. Controverfy with Dr. Lingard, the Roman
Catholic Hiftorian. Prefented to Living of Bijhop Mid-
dleham. Defcription of the Parijh. Prefented to Reftory of
Gatejhead. Account of the Parijh. Collated to the Ninth
Prebendal Stall in Durham Cathedral. Prefented to Living
of S. Margaret's, in Durham. Ill-feeling excited. Cha
racter as a Parijh Prieft. Preached at Anniverfary of Sons
of the Clergy, in S. Paul's Cathedral. Some Account of the
Sermon. Collated to the Second Stall in Durham Cathedral.

XETER is proud of its Bifhops ; and
with good reafon, for few Sees can ex
hibit a roll of more illuftrious names.

The original feat of the Biftiopric was
at Crediton, from whence it was removed to Exeter

B

2 Celebrated Bijhops of the Diocefe.

by Leofric (A. D. 1050), who was folemnly inftalled in
his new Cathedral by King Edward the Confeflbr, in
perfon, and thus became the firft Bifhop of Exeter,
properly fo called. There had, however, been Biftiops
of Cornwall and Devonfhire for more than a hundred
years previoufly, but they were only fuffragans of the
See of Sherborne.

Among the more celebrated of the Bimops of
Exeter, many of whom were natives of that city, the
following deferve to be mentioned.*

BARTHOLOMEW (A. D. 1161), who was called by
Pope Alexander III. " the luminary of the Englifh
Church," an appellation to which his rare gifts and
profound theological learning fully entitled him. Like
the prefent occupant of the See, he diftinguifhed him-
felf by an uncompromifing opposition to his primate
(Thomas a Becket).

WILLIAM BRIWERE (A.D. 1224), famous for his
faintly life, and the deeds of mercy which he performed
in the Holy Land.

WALTER DE STAPLEDON (A.D. 1308), who founded
Exeter College, and added largely to his Cathedral.
He was brutally murdered by a mob in London.

JOHN DE GRANDISSON (A.D. 1327), renowned for
his princely munificence, and the falutary reforms
which he effected in his diocefe.

RICHARD Fox (A.D. 1487), the chief friend and

* For a chronological lift of the Bifhops of Exeter, fee
Appendix A.

Celebrated Bifhops of the Diocefe. 3

counfellor of Henry VII, and the founder of Corpus
Chrifti College, Oxford, who united in his fingle
perfon the characters of ftatefman, architect, foldier,
herald, diplomatift, and prelate : a combination of
qualities rare even in thofe ftirring times.

HUGH OLDHAM (A.D. 1504), famed for the fplen-
did encouragement which he gave to literature.

MYLES COVERDALE (A.D. 1551), the tranflator of
the Bible, who was deprived by Queen Mary.

JAMES TURBEVILLE (A.D. 1555), deprived by
Queen Elizabeth for refufing to take the Oath of
Supremacy.

JOSEPH HALL (A.D. 1627), celebrated for his great
literary attainments and theological writings. He was
fubjedted to much ill treatment and perfecution.

JOHN GAUDEN (A.D. 1660), the reputed author of
the EixcoV Ba<nAi>oi, and one of the Divines feledled to
confer with the Prefbyterians at the Savoy.

SETH WARD (A.D. 1662), the celebrated Church-
reftorer.

JONATHAN TRELAWNEY (A.D. 1688), who was one
of the feven Bifhops imprifoned by James II.

Many of the Bimops of Exeter are famous for the
part which they played in hiftory, and their names
are preferved in ancient chronicles as Chancellors of
the Kingdom, AmbafTadors at Foreign Courts, Tutors
and Guardians of Royal Children, and Counfellors of
Monarchs. It is true that fince the Reformation the
See has been morn of much of its temporal dignity,
in confequence of the fpoliation of its revenues, and it

4 Birth of Henry Phillpotts.

has too often been regarded merely as a ftepping-ftone
to other and richer preferment ; but ftill the glorious
traditions of the paft remain, and of all the illuftrious
prelates who have ruled the Diocefe of Exeter, it may
be doubted whether any one of them has done more
to merit the homage of the Church than the prefent
occupant of the epifcopal throne — the 6oth in fuc-
ceflion from Leofric. His name will furvive when
thofe of his contemporaries are forgotten, and the
fervices which he has rendered to religion will be
cheriflied with gratitude, fo long as England retains
her veneration for the Faith which was once delivered
to the Saints.

Among the Bifhops of Exeter, fome may be found
who were of humble origin, and raifed themfelves from
mean ftations to the epifcopal chair by their talents
and learning. The prefent occupant of it — to his
honour be it recorded — is of their number.

HENRY PHILLPOTTS was born at Bridgwater, an
inconfiderable Somerfetfhire town, lying clofe on the
borders of the bloody field of Sedgmoor, and famous
for its butter and cheefe, on May 6th, 1778, and was
baptized in the parifh. church on the i6th of the fame
month. He was the fecond fon of Mr. John Phill
potts, who carried on the trade of a brickmaker in
that town. In 1782 his father removed to Gloucefter,
and became the landlord of the " Bell " inn in that
city, a tavern of no great pretenfion. In former times
none but freemen were allowed to keep inns or hotels
in corporate towns ; and when any perfon who was not

Account of his Family. 5

a freeman, or a ftranger coming from a diftance, de-
fired to do fo, it was neceflary that he mould firft be
admitted as a freeman — ufually by the payment of a
fine. Mr. John Phillpotts was admitted as a free
man of Gloucefter, in confideration of a fine, on 28th
September, 1782, and immediately afterwards took
poffeffion of the inn.

It is not a little remarkable that the celebrated Non-
conformift, George Whitfield, was in 1714 born at the
" Bell," at Gloucefter, of which his father was the
hoft. Unlike his illuftrious predeceflbr, however, the
future prelate does not appear to have mingled in the
bufinefs of the houfe, thereby efcaping thofe perils
into which Whitfield fell, when, to ufe his own words,
— cc I put on my blue apron and my {buffers, wafhed
mops, cleaned rooms, and, in one word, became pro-
fefled and common drawer for nigh a year and a-half."
Better things than this were in ftore for the fubject of
this hiftory, for his father fubfequently relinquifhed
the bufinefs of inn-keeping, and became an auctioneer,
and land and timber furveyor. At this period he re-
fided at Wallfworth, near Gloucefter, and was fortunate
enough to be appointed land agent of the Dean and
Chapter, joth November, 1799, an introduction which
afterwards led to his eldeft fon becoming chapter
clerk. He died at Gloucefter, widely and defervedly
refpedted, February 22, 1814, aged 70 years; and his
widow, Mrs. Sybella Phillpotts, who lived to fee her
fon afcend the epifcopal throne, alfo died in that city,
December 31, 1833, at the advanced age of 81.

6 His Early Education.

The early education of Henry Phillpotts was re
ceived at the College School at Gloucefter, and it fell
to the lot of the Rev. Arthur Benoni Evans, a found
fcholar as well as a man of fome literary tafte, to
mould the youthful intellect of the future prelate.
At this time he was remarkable more for his fteady
and induftrious habits, than for any brilliancy of mental
power, or originality of thought. After pafling through
the ufual routine of claflical ftudies, fuch as was then
in favour in provincial towns, he proceeded to Oxford,
and it is much to his credit that, without any of thofe
advantages of education which are infeparable from
large public fchools, he was able fuccefsfully to com
pete for a fcholarfhip.

On November 7, 1791, he was matriculated at
Corpus Chrifti College, at an age when moft boys
have fcarcely left the nurfery — thirteen years. This
was the college of Cardinal Pole, Jewel, Hooker,
John Hales, and other celebrities. His extreme youth
did not prevent him from fecuring fome of the fub-
ftantial honours and emoluments of the Univerfity ;
for, having taken his B.A. degree, 3rd June, I795>~
he was in the following month elected a Probationer
Fellow of Magdalene College on the Somerfet Foun
dation. In the fame year alfo he became Univerfity
Prizeman, his Eflay on " the Influence of a Religious
Principle " being adjudged the beft.

And now a fplendid career was opening before him.
A ripe fcholar, and a Fellow of a diftinguifhed Houfe,
at an age when moft boys are ftill at fchool, it would

Dr. Martin Routh. 7

have been eafy to predict that the higheft honours of
any profeflion, which he might follow, would await
him. His painftaking habits, joined to indomitable
ftedfaftnefs of purpofe, rendered fuccefs inevitable.
Even his enemies have been compelled to acknow
ledge that if he had carried his talents and application
to the Bar, he might have rivalled the greateft of
Englifh Chancellors.

It was at this time that he was honoured with the
notice of one, who was deftined to exercife a powerful
and beneficial influence over his future life. In the
fame year that Mr. Phillpotts entered Oxford, Dr.
Martin Routh was elected Prefident of Magdalene
College, and to him it belonged to mould the mind of
the youthful Fellow, and inftil into it thofe found
principles of theology which qualified him- in later
years to become the uncompromifing champion of the
Faith. What Mr. Phillpotts owed to his intercourfe
with this gifted fcholar and divine — the one living
memorial that linked our days to thofe of the Pearfons,
and other giants of theology — it would not be eafy
to fay. To him, above all others, Mr. Phillpotts
feems to have opened the hidden receffes of his foul.
A faithful counfellor in difficulties, a ready reference
in controverfy, a fcholar whofe well-ftored mind was
never at a lofs for an apt quotation, a friend whofe
inftinds foared above all earthly confiderations, Dr.
Routh was the man of all others to win and fafhion
to noble purpofes the ardent fpirit of Mr. Phillpotts.
It is due to both of them to fay that the friendmip

8 Bifhop ofLlandaff.

thus early begun was only terminated by Dr. Routh's
death in December, 1854, at a patriarchal age, and
that to the very laft his former pupil was accuftomed
to feek his counfel with all the affectionate refpect of
earlier days. Even when the good old Prefident
had feen him rife to fame and honours, he ftill felt to
wards him as a father, and often was his eye feen to
brighten when he heard how well he was righting the
good fight, and was laying hold on eternal life.

Another of Mr. Phillpotts' earlier! friends at Oxford
was Mr. Copleftone, afterwards Provoft of Oriel, Dean
of S. Paul's, and Bifhop of Llandaff. A fcholar of
the higher! order, and courtier-like in manners, it is
probable that this diftinguimed prelate approached,
nearer than any man of his day, to Burke's ftandard
of perfection in converfation — <c not to play a regular
fonata, but, like the -^Eolian harp, to await the infpi-
ration of the parTing breeze ;" and the charm of his
friendship will long be a cherimed remembrance to all
thofe who were honoured with it.

It was while in daily intercourfe with fuch men as
thefe that Mr. Phillpotts' choice of a path in life was
made. The firft ftep, however, was taken with much
deliberation ; for it was not until feven years after his
Bachelor's degree that he was admitted to Holy Or
ders. Meanwhile, the dignified leifure of a Fellowfhip
on the fplendid foundation of William of Waynflete,
gave him all the opportunity that was wanted for cul
tivating his literary taftes, aflbciating with the ripeft
fcholars, and Strengthening the foundation of thofe ac-

Enters Holy Orders. 9

quirements which were to be his bulwark in many a
ftorm to come.

On the 1 8th of April, 1798, he proceeded to the
degree of M.A., and on the 25th of July, 1800, he
was elected Praelector of Moral Philofophy. In 1802
he was appointed one of the firft examiners of can
didates for Univerfity honours, jointly with the late
Bifhop of LlandafF (Dr. Edward Copleftone), and other
diftinguifhed fcholars. On the ijth of June in the
fame year he was ordained Deacon by Dr. John Ran
dolph, Bifhop of Oxford. In 1803 he was again
appointed one of the examiners of candidates for Uni
verfity honours. On the 23 rd of February, 1804, ne
was ordained Prieft, at Chefter, by Dr. Henry William
Majendie, the bifhop of that diocefe ; and on the
27th of Odlober in the fame year he refigned his Fel-
lowfhip, having married Deborah Maria, daughter of
William Surtees, Efq., of Bath, and niece of Lady
Eldon. On the 5th of November he was felected to
preach before the Univerfity on the Gunpowder Trea-
fon.

In the following year (1805) the Principalfhip of
Hertford College became vacant by the death of Dr.
Hodgfon. This college, under the title of Hert Hall,
had been inhabited by ftudents fo early as the reign of
Edward I, and in the following reign it was conveyed
to Walter de Stapledon, founder of Exeter College.
In the early part of the eighteenth century, Dr. New
ton, the Principal, obtained from George II. a Royal
Charter for converting it into a college, under the title

i o His Firft Benefice.

of Hertford College. The attempt was unfuccefsful,
and the eftablifhment gradually languifhed for want of
funds. On the death of Dr. Hodgfon the Principal-
fhip was offered to Mr. Phillpotts, but, with com
mendable prudence, he declined it, as there were many
vexatious regulations which he would have been obliged
to fwear that he would keep ; and, the time for the
appointment of a Principal having elapfed, the Cor
poration became extinct.

Before quitting this portion of the fubject, it may
be well to notice that Mr. Phillpotts proceeded to the
degrees of Bachelor and Doctor of Divinity on the
28th of June, 1821, and that he was elected an Hono
rary Fellow of Magdalene" College on the 2nd of Feb
ruary, 1862. This diftinction was conferred on him
in confequence of the new ordinance of the Univerfity
Commiflioners having allowed the College to elect a
certain number of Honorary Fellows, without emolu
ment, as a mark of honour. Befides the fubject of
this hiftory, the only other Honorary Fellows of Mag
dalene College are Sir Roundell Palmer and the Earl
of Rofle.

The firft benefice held by Mr. Phillpotts was the
vicarage of Kilmerfdon, with the chapelry of Afhwick,
near Bath, in the diocefe of Bath and Wells, to which
he was prefented by the Crown, ift September, 1804.
The value of this living is 244 /. per annum, and the
population at the prefent time is 2,200. He con
tinued to hold this benefice until April 1806 ; but it
does not appear that he ever refided there, fince all

Chaplain to the Bifhop of Durham. 1 1

the entries in the parifh regifter during his incum
bency are by Daniel Drape, curate, and there are no
traditions preferred of his refidence.

On 24th December in the following year (1805) he
was inftituted to Stainton-le-ftreet, in the diocefe of
Durham, value 36o/. ; population 150 ; patron, the
Crown. His name does not appear in the parifh
regifter, and it is believed that he never refided there.
If it fhould excite furprife that fo young a man, as
Mr. Phillpotts then was, who had ftepped at once from
Oxford life into a benefice which would now-a-days be
thought a fufficient provifion for a parifh prieft after
years of labour, fhould have been permitted to hold
two livings at the fame time, without refiding upon
either of them, it muft be pleaded that he was in
affinity to Lord Chancellor Eldon.

In 1806 Mr. Phillpotts became chaplain to the
Bifhop of Durham (Dr. Shute Harrington), that di£-
tinguifhed prelate having been attracted towards him
by the fame of his ability and learning — an appoint
ment which he continued to hold until the bifhop's
death, twenty years afterwards. His ftudies had early
been directed to the Roman Catholic controverfy, and
an opportunity was foon afforded for tefting the depth
and folidity of his acquirements. In 1806 Bifhop
Barrington delivered a charge to the clergy of the
diocefe of Durham, which was afterwards publifhed at
their requeft, on " the Grounds on which the Church
of England feparated from the Church of Rome."
This was animadverted upon in no very meafured

1 2 Prefented to Etjhop Middleham.

terms by an anonymous writer, who was generally
fuppofed to be Dr. Lingard, the Roman Catholic
hiftorian. Mr. Phillpotts boldly flood forward in
defence of his diocefan. Several fmall pamphlets were
written on both fides with confiderable ability, and
Mr. Phillpotts fully eftabliftied his reputation as an
accurate thinker, and a controverfial writer of no mean
order. The controverfy was renewed feveral years
later with a more ingenuous opponent than Dr. Lin
gard had proved himfelf to be, when the corruptions
of the Roman Church were mofl completely expofed.
It will fave needlefs repetition, therefore, if remarks
on Mr. Phillpotts' conduct in reference to the Roman
Catholic queftion are deferred until his letters to Mr.
Charles Butler come under consideration.

In the fpring of 1806, as has been already ftated,
Mr. Phillpotts refigned the living of Kilmerfdon, and
on June 28th, in the fame year, he was prefented by the
Crown to Bifhop Middleham, in theDiocefe of Durham,
This living was held by him in commendamwith Stainton,
and as he fixed his refidence here for about two years,
it will be well to give fome account of the parim. It
is a village of confiderable fize, irregularly built on
two floping limeftone hills, and in the valley between
them. The place is poffefled of antiquarian intereft,
the Caftle of Middleham having been a principal refi
dence of the Bifhops of Durham from the Conqueft
till the end of the I4th century. Until 1 844, the church
was covered with white-warn, and had been disfigured
at every available point by village craftfmen, modern

Prefented to Retfory of Gate/head. 1 3

fafhes taking the place of lancet windows. It has
recently been reftored by Mrs. Surtees, the widow of
Robert Surtees, Efq., of Mainsforth, who has a life-
rent in fome property in the parifh. A fchool-room,
with fmall garden attached, was built by fubfcription
in 1770. No traces of Mr. Phillpotts' incumbency
remain, beyond fome anecdotes which prove him to
have been an active and not always a popular magif-
trate. It may, however, be mentioned, that his fecond
and third children (a fon and daughter) were chriftened
at Bifhop Middlehanij the former having been born
in the January previous to his inftitution to the living.
The next preferment of Mr. Phillpotts was the large
and important Parim of Gatemead, to which he was
collated by the Bifhop of Durham in 1808.* The
value of this living is about 1,0507. per annum, and
the Rector is alfo ex qfficio matter of the ancient
hofpital of King James in Gatemead, deriving from it
an income of about 250 /. per annum. The parifh,
as it now exifts, contains about 26,000 fouls, but
during Mr. Phillpotts' incumbency it was co-extenfive
with the borough, which now contains 35,000 inhabit
ants. The Rectory was formerly a good houfe with
gardens, and a view towards the river; but it was
gradually furrounded by iron works and other factories.
The railway company purchafed it, and the fucceflbr

* The day of the month cannot be given, as the firft fub
fcription book of Bifhop Barrington, relating to the period
at which the inftitution of Mr. Phillpotts took place, has been
loft.

14 Prefented to Living of S. Margaret.

of Mr. Phillpotts, the Rev. J. Collinfon, removed to a
handfome and commodious houfe, nearly a mile to the
weft of the parifh church, which is now the rectory.
The church is fpacious, and of regular architecture,
confifting of a nave, with uniform aides, weft tower,
chancel and tranfept. The whole of the lights are
modern. There are no details of intereft during
the fhort incumbency of Mr. Phillpotts ; and the only
circumftance to be recorded is that his fecond fon was
born in this parifh.

The friendmip of the Bifhop of Durham was now
bearing moft abundant fruit, and in the following year
(1809) Mr. Phillpotts was collated to the ninth Pre-
bendal Stall* in the Cathedral Church of Chrift and
the Blefled Virgin Mary in Durham. If a canonry is
a poft of dignity, it is, at leaft, no empty honour ;
and when it is remembered that Mr. Phillpotts, who
was now thirty-one years of age, had already held four
livings, befides a prebendal ftall, it muft be confefled
that he was fortunate in obtaining fuch fpeedy and
fubftantial recognition of his merits.

Mr. Phillpotts now refided for a confiderable portion
of the year in Durham, and on the Chapelry of S.
Margaret in that city becoming vacant, he was prefented
to it by the Dean and Chapter, the 28th of September,
1810. The parifli is an important one, and contains
at the prefent time 6,916 inhabitants. The church
was originally one of the four chapels dependent on

* Canonry.

Ill-feeling excited. 15

the parochial church of S. Ofwald. It ftands on the
afcent of the hill, where South Street branches from
CrofTgate. The value of the Living is about 330 /.
per annum. During the incumbency of Mr. Phillpotts
there were no fchools ; but one for boys and another
for girls was built in 1860. A parfonage houfe was
alfo built in 1849.

Some ill-feeling was caufed by the prefentation of
Mr. Phillpotts to this living. The Minor Canons
regarded it as a peculiar of their own, and one of their
number made no fecret of his difappointment at his
fuppofed claim having been difregarded. Mr. Phill
potts is well remembered by the parishioners as a hard
working and zealous clergyman, gifted with great ad-
miniftrative ability, and fingularly earneft in all the
duties of his office. The veftry meetings were not
always of the moft harmonious defcription, and the
tacl and addrefs with which he controlled turbulent
fpirits gave evidence of the capacity which he after
wards difplayed in more important pofts, and under
more trying circumftances.

In the year 1814 Mr. Phillpotts was fele&ed to
preach the fermon at the Anniverfary Meeting of the
Sons of the Clergy in S. Paul's Cathedral (May 12).
His text was i Tim. iii. 1 2 : — " Let the deacons be the
hufbands of one wife, ruling their children and their
own houfes well." There is nothing remarkable in
the fermon, except a paffage relating to the difqualifi-
cation of a divorced perfon from undertaking any
clerical office, which is not altogether inappropriate

1 6 Sermon at the Anniverfary

to times which have witnefled a clergyman feeking
for relief from the matrimonial bond in the Divorce
Court : —

" The extreme facility with which divorces were effe&ed,
not only among the Greeks and Romans, but alfo under the
Jewifti law, was more than once remarked on by our Blefled
Lord in the courfe of His miniftry ; and He was pleafed to
teftify His reprobation of the practice in the ftrongeft terms,
and alfo to eftablifh in His new Kingdom an inftitute, ac
cording better with that purity of heart and life which it was
one main object of His miflion to inculcate. Since, how
ever, the practice was fo prevalent, and had hitherto been
deemed fo innocent, it muft have happened, in many in-
ftances, that the new convert to Chriftianity was already
the hufband of a fecond wife during the lifetime of one
whom he had divorced. Now, what had legally been done
before his admiflion into the Church would not neceflarily
be annulled even by that law which forbade its followers to
ufe the fame licence. The laft contracl: would ftill fubfift;
nor would baptifm diflblve an union which the law of Mofes,
or of the civil government, had fanctioned. Yet ftill as the
precept of the Gofpel was in direct oppofition to it, and as
the minifter of Chrift would have to inculcate this as well
as the other branches of Chriftian morality, it was obvioufly
unfeemly that he fhould be living himfelf in a connection
which the pure law of the Gofpel would compel him to de
nounce in future as adulterous. It became, therefore, the
fpirit of a religion, jealous of the character of its minifters,
to prevent this fcandal ; and while it did not annul the con
tract, to exclude thofe who had engaged in it from being
ordained to any of the holy offices of the Church."

It may be iriterefting to notice that in the above
extract Mr. Phillpotts is following clofely in the fteps
of S. Auguftine, who fays (De Bono Conjugally 18) : —

of the Sons of the Clergy. 17

" On this account the facrament of marriage of our time
hath been fo reduced to one man and one wife, as that it is
not lawful to ordain any as a fteward of the Church, fave the
hufband of one wife. And this they have underftood more
acutely who have been of opinion, that neither is he to be
ordained, who as a catechumen or as a heathen had a fecond
wife. For it is a matter of facrament, not of fin. But on
account of the fanclity of the facrament, as a female, al
though it be as a catechumen that (he hath fuffered violence,
cannot after baptifm be confecrated among the virgins of
God ; fo there was no abfurdity in fuppofmg of him who
had exceeded the number of one wife, not that he had com
mitted any fin, but that he had loft a certain prefcript rule
of a facrament, neceflary not unto defert of good life, but
unto the feal of ecclefiaftical ordination."

The reft of Mr. Phillpotts' fermon is taken up with
a confideration of the arguments in favour of a married
priefthood ; but as our clergy commonly evince little
reluctance to enter upon the ftate of matrimony, it
will be needlefs to recapitulate them. It was followed
by a collection of 9147. IQJ.

Two more children were born to Mr. Phillpotts
before he received his next important piece of prefer
ment — the fecond ftall in Durham Cathedral, to which
he was collated by the bifhop, December 30, 1815,
on the death of Dr. Thomas Zouch. This ftall, al
though not the richeft in the Cathedral, was confider-
ably greater in value than the ninth, to which he had
already been preferred. He held it for five years,
during which time four children were born to him.

And now we approach the period of his literary
labours.

i8

CHAPTER II.

tent Provifionfor the Poor. Various Enactments. Vagrancy
revented. 'The Law of Settlement. Dlf advantages of

Ancles

prevented. The Law of Settlement. Difadvantages of
Exifting Syftem. Propofals for remedying them. Mr. Sturges
Bourne's Motion. Mr. Phillpotts oppofed to it. His Letter
to Mr. Sturges Bourne. The extfting Law not complex.
Expenfe incurred by Parijhes in litigation and removals.
Debajing ejfeft of Paupers recording that they have acquired
a Settlement. Injustice of returning upon Parijhes aged Pau
pers who have lived elfewhere. The real Grievance Jtated.
Danger of drawing Agricultural Labourers into Towns. Re
moval of Paupers to their legal Settlement, and feparation
from their friends and connexions. Character of Overfeers.
General Merits of Mr. Phillpotts1 Letter to Mr. Sturges
Bourne.

N the year 1819 the attention of the
country was directed to the Poor Laws,
one of the moft difficult and important
queftions which it has ever fallen to the
lot of Parliament to confider. Previous to the Con-
queft the duty of providing for the maintenance of
the poor, who were unable to fupport themfelves, de
volved upon " parfons, rectors, and the parifhioners,
fo that none of them mould die for want of fufte-
nance."* It is faid that a fourth part of the tithes
was devoted to this purpofe, and adminiftered by the

* " Home's Mirror of Juftice," c. i. s. 3.

Ancient Provtfionfor the Poor. 19

incumbent under the direction of the bifhop. After
the Conqueft, ecclefiaftical revenues were ftill devoted
to the fame purpofe, and monks became the relieving
officers, and monafteries the poor-houfes of the land.
From that period till the time of Henry VIII. the
fame cuftom prevailed, and the wants of the poor
were fupplied by the clergy with pious care. It is
worthy of remark, as mowing the fidelity with which
this truft was difcharged, that the firft legiflative
attempt to provide for the poor was made in the fame
year when the property of fo many religious houfes
was vefted in the Crown.*

A ftatute for compulfory afleflrnent for the poor
was pafled in the i4th Elizabeth. This was after
wards confirmed by the 43 rd of the fame reign (chap.
2), which enacted that a convenient ftock fhould be
provided to fet the poor on work, and that this mould
be difpenfed by the overfeers of the parim. It was
thought necefTary to pafs another Act (13 & 14
Charles II. chap. 12), on account of poor people
wandering from one parifti to another, where they
were likely to find the beft ftock, " and at laft be
coming rogues and vagabonds, to the great difcour-
agement of parishes to provide ftocks, where they are
liable to be devoured by ftrangers." Vagrancy of the
kind alluded to was prevented by a certificate from
the parochial authorities, which the pauper was com-

* 27 Hen. VIII. c. 28, which contains the firft provifion
by which particular diftri&s are dire&ed to fupport the
poor.

20 The Law of Settlement.

pelled to carry with him when he quitted his parifh ;
failing this, he was liable, within forty days, to be taken
before a juftice of the peace, and fent back to his own
parifh.

It would occupy too much fpace, although it would
be an interefting employment, to defcribe the various
fteps of legiflative enactment in reference to the law
of fettlement. Suffice it to fay that it was furrounded
and limited by certain rules and reftrictions, which
were relaxed or tightened according to the temper of
the times. It may fafely be affirmed, however, that
no attempt at legislation was, upon the whole, fatisfac-
tory, although the general tendency was to difcourage
vagrancy, and give more freedom to the induftrious
poor.

Thus matters remained until the termination of a
long and bloody war left the kingdom free to contend
with one of its greateft domeftic evils. It was in the
year 1819 that the advocates of amendment of the
Law of Settlement were ftrenuous in urging the dif-
ad vantages of the exifting fyftem, which they fummed
up under three heads : —

1. The enormous expenfe incurred by parifhes in
profecuting and defending appeals, and in removing
paupers.

2. The injuftice under which parifhes laboured to
which old paupers were fent back, after they had fpent
their youth and ftrength elfewhere.

3. The hardmip upon the paupers who, having
refided many years and formed connections at a dif-

Mr. St urges Bourne }s Motion. 2 1

tance, were fent home to their parifhes, and feparated
from all their friends and confolations, to die in a
remote poor-houfe.

In order to remove thefe evils, it was propofed that
a fettlement mould be acquired by refidence only, and
not, as heretofore, by refidence combined with certain
qualifications. The difficulty was, what length of re
fidence mould confer a fettlement. One advantage
would be gained, in the opinion of the favourers of the
fcheme, for if a reafonable period were fixed upon, it
would obviate the feparation of an aged pauper from
his friends, provided he went before a magiftrate and
made oath of his refidence. In cafes of difpute, it was
propofed that an appeal mould lie, not to the Quarter
Seflions, but to two magiftrates, and thus avoid all
needlefs expenfe.

One of the foremoft advocates of this meafure in
the Houfe of Commons was Mr. Sturges Bourne, who,
on the afth of March, 1819, moved for leave to bring
in a Bill to regulate the fettlement of the poor. As an
aclive juftice of the peace, Mr. Phillpotts had devoted
himfelf to a careful ftudy of all that related to this
mod perplexing queftion, and he believed that the pro
pofed amendment of the law would by no means be
productive of fuch beneficial refults as were commonly
anticipated. He, therefore, addrefled a letter, on the
6th of April, to Mr. Sturges Bourne,* for the purpofe

* " A Letter to the Right Hon. William Sturges Bourne,
M.P.,on a Bill introduced by him into Parliament to amend

22 Mr. Phillpotts Letter

of fhowing that the fyftem of the Law of Settlement
then exifting was not fairly open to the charge of
complexity alleged againft it, and that the three evils
already referred to would not be leflened by the pro-
pofed amendment. On the firft point he remarks with
much acutenefs : —

" The moft perfect fimplicity, be it remembered, is very
confiftent with a great number of particulars. A fingle
fweeping provifion will, indeed, neceflarily be fimple ; but
it will not follow that it may not be expofed by its very fim
plicity to many of the fame confequences as refult from a
fyftem of extreme intricacy. The main objection to a very
complex law is the difficulty of applying it ; but, furely, this
difficulty may equally be caufed by the extreme fimplicity of
the law, if it meet not with a correfponding fimplicity in the
fa&s to which it is to be applied."

In reference to the firft of the three evils to be
remedied by the new law, — the enormous expenfe in
curred by parimes in litigation and removals, — Mr.
Phillpotts afTerts that it amounts to not more than one
twentieth part of the whole fum difburfed on the poor,
or about three-halfpence in the pound on the entire
rental of England. He admits that almoft the whole
of this would ultimately be faved, but adds : —

" In the earlier ftages of its operation, and for a confider-
able length of time, I am greatly miftaken if it would not

the laws refpe&ing the fettlement of the poor, by the Rev.
Henry Phillpotts, M.A., Prebendary of Durham, and one of
his Majefty's Juftices of the Peace for the County Palatine
of Durham."

to Mr. St urges Bourne. 23

multiply and aggravate the mifchief in an incalculable
degree/'

The neceflity for introducing a provifion into the
new Bill, empowering every perfon, as foon as he has
refided in a parifh long enough to gain a fettlement, to
make a record of his having done fo, and thus to arm
himfelf with evidence againft the time when he comes
to claim parifh relief, draws from Mr. Phillpotts an
earneft and eloquent proteft : —

" Nothing can be further from my intention than to fay
one word derogatory to the wifdom of the general views of
thofe enlightened men who have pafled this Bill. But it is
becaufe I have a very high opinion of their wifdom, that my
aftonifhment is excited by a provifion which directly contra
dicts the main principle, which bitter experience has taught
us to recognize in the policy of poor laws. Surely the great
defideratum of all is to find fome method of reanimating the
fpirit of proper independence in the lower orders, of with
drawing their views from the parim fund, and inducing them
to ftruggle hard againft the degradation of being compelled to
have recourfe to it. Yet here we find the legiflature itfelf pur-
fuing a directly contrary courfe, and inviting the labourer to
familiarize himfelf as early as potfible with the profpecl: of
being a pauper, to connect it with all his plans of induftry
or idlenefs — in fhort, to aflbciate the notion of right, and
privilege of triumph over the overfeer, and future gain for
himfelf and his family, with that which never ought to be
contemplated by a man in health and vigour, but as a difgrace
to be fhunned, or a misfortune to be deprecated."

In reference to the fecond evil, — the injuftice to
parimes of returning upon them aged or infirm
paupers, whofe youth and ftrength have been fpent
elfewhere, — Mr. Phillpotts afTerts that it is not a

24 Danger of drawing Agricultural

common cafe for aged paupers to be removed to the
fcenes of their infancy ; and even in cafes where it
takes place, he fails to fee the injuftice done to their
parifhes. The real grievance, although it is not openly
dated, he declares to be that the poor who refide in
towns, particularly the manufacturing poor, are often
removed to country pariihes, which would be glad to
be excufed from the burden of maintaining any other
decayed labourers than their own.

" But let us," fays Mr. Phillpotts, " confider this matter
a little more particularly. It will not be denied that a large
portion of the natives of every country parifh are provided
for by the occupation afforded in towns. Reference to the
regifter of all fuch parifhes will fhow that the deaths in them
bear no proportion to the births ; that there is, therefore, a
conftant ftream of population flowing from the country into
the towns. Is it then inequitable, as feems to be prefumed,
that part of the charge of maintaining thefe fame perfons in
their decay or diftrefs fhould fall on the diftri&s which gave
them birth, but which have been relieved from the burden
of finding employment or fupport for them in their earlier
years ?"

The danger of perpetually drawing agricultural
labourers into towns is very forcibly dated by Mr.
Phillpotts : —

" I prefume to add another confideration, which, obvious
as it is, feems to be difregarded : I mean the mifchief of
drawing the lower orders of people from the country into
towns ; a mifchief of which it is hard to fay whether it be
more formidable to the morals and happinefs of the people,
or to the peace and fecurity of the ftate. Already the evil
is felt and lamented by many of the moft enlightened friends
of the poor throughout the land. While the population of

Labourers into Towns. 25

the whole ifland is advancing fo rapidly, that according to
the fame rate of progreflion it will have doubled itfelf in little
more than fifty years, in fome of the ancient agricultural
parimes it is hardly fuftained at its former level ; in fome it
is even retrograding. Already it is not an uncommon thing
for rural labourers to live in the adjacent towns, and never
can this take place without injury to thofe characteriftic
excellencies which were wont to diftinguifh the Englifh
peafant." '

In reference to the third evil, — the hardfhip which
befalls paupers, who having refided many years, and
formed connections, at a diftance, are fent away to their
legal fettlements, and feparated from their friends and
acquaintances to die in a remote poor-houfe, — Mr.
Phillpotts admits that cafes of this kind occafionally
do occur, but denies that they happen fo often as to
make them a fit object of a remedial law. As a proof
of this, he inftances the well-known accommodation
between the abfent pauper and his overfeer, which
enables him to receive relief without being removed
to his parifli. Overfeers, in Mr. Phillpotts' eyes, are
models of courtefy and generofity. Harfhnefs is un
known, or only known to be reprobated.

" For one inftance," he affirms, " where a reafonable
arrangement is prevented by the obftinacy or inhumanity of
the overfeer, I believe that fifty may be found where it takes
place moft improperly."

Mr. Phillpotts* experiences have evidently lain in
pleafant paftures. He believes that relieving officers
are to the poor the fmiling and urbane officials that
they appear to him. A few months' work in the lanes

26 Character qfOverfeers.

and alleys of one of our crowded cities might have
undeceived him. The parochial " Bumbles " have
not acquired their reputation for nothing.

That thefe officials have occafionally very trying
duties to perform is true enough, but it is equally true
that tyranny and rigour are as often feen as pity and
difcretion. But, after all, the fault does not lie fo
much with the relieving officers as with their employers
— the Poor Law Guardians — whofe fole aim appears to
be to comprefs the rates into the fmalleft poffible com-
pafs. If a few widows and orphans are crufhed in the
procefs, who has any right to complain ? The rates
are kept low, and if that is not enough, what more
do " liberals " want ? *

But prefently Mr. Phillpotts defcends from the
amenities of overfeers, and touches upon the real
principle at iflue in the removal of aged paupers : —

" I do not fee why fo great a benefit as gratuitous fupport
at the expenfe of the public fhould be thought hardly earned
by compliance with a condition, which the good of the
public requires. If, even in this age of exceffive fenfibility,
it were attempted to excite our compaffion for the unhappy
officer, or foldier, whofe fubfiftence is made to depend on a
condition often the moft painful to his feelings, c who is torn
from his family and connections to die in a remote garrifon '

* Thefe remarks are not intended to apply in any fpecial
fenfe to the place in which they are written. They are
founded on an extended obfervation, and the writer has much
pleafure in teftifying to the courteous attention which he has
always received from the Secretary of the Corporation of the
Poor in Exeter, as well as from the officers under his control.

General Merits of Letter. 27

— few of us, I conceive, would think the complaint worthy
of a ferious anfwer. I am myfelf hard-hearted enough to
feel as little fympathy in the prefent inftance."

After this avowal, it is needlefs to fay that Mr.
Phillpotts is wedded to the exifting order of things.

Some obfervations on the cc misjudging tendernefs "
in the adminiftration of the Poor Laws bring this
letter to a conclufion. It is written with fome ability,
and with considerable knowledge of the fubject from
a theoretical point of view. There is, however, an
entire abfence of everything that would denote a
practical acquaintance with the workings of a moft
intricate and difficult law. Mr. Phillpotts profefles
very great refpect for Mr. Sturges Bourne and his
companions in philanthropic labour; there is, therefore,
no trace of thofe pungent ingredients which give a
relifh to moft of his earlier performances. Compared,
then, with his other pamphlets, this letter of Mr.
Phillpotts muft be defcribed as tame. There is no
thing in it to mark the future opponent of Jeffrey, Grey,
and Canning. It is the production of a country
. clergyman, well-fkilled in Quarter Seflions, and gifted
with a certain aptitude for making the beft of his
cafe ; but it is nothing more.

28

CHAPTER III.

Letter of Mr. Phillpotts to Lord Grey on the Roman Catholic
tjhtejtion. Remarks on his Style. Lord Grey's Motion for
Repeal of the Teft Att. Mr. Phillpotts' Motives in addr ef
fing him. His Qualifications for the tajk. Inducements for
the Clergy to mingle in Politics at the commencement of this
century. The "Tone of Mr. Phillpotts' Earlier Writings ac
counted for. Hardjhip of the Tejt. How it might have been
obviated. Roman Catholic Writers anxious to Jhow that there
is very little difference of Doctrine between the Churches of
England and Rome. Dijhonefty of the Attempt. Summary
of the chief Differences in Doclrine between the two Churches.
Archbijhop Wake and the Dottors of the Sorbonne. The Arch-
bijhop improperly quoted by Lord Grey. An Account of his
Attempt to reconcile the Anglican and Gallican Churches.
Du Pin's " Commonitorium." The Real Prefence vindi
cated. The Objeft of Lord Greys Speech on the Teji Aft.
The Source from whence he derived the greater part of his
Theological Arguments. His Lordjhip's Remarks upon the 1 8tb
Article of Religion and the Athanafian Creed. Intrepid Con-
duel of Mr. Phillpotts. Defence of the Athanafian Creed.
The Condemnatory Claufes. Character of the Letter to Lord
Grey. Mr. Phillpotts not an entire Exclufionift.

fHE letter to Mr. Sturges Bourne was
quickly followed by another on a very
different fubjecl:. And here, for the pre-
fent, Mr. Phillpotts thought fit to with
hold his name ; but, if he defired concealment, his
wifh was not deftined to be gratified, for it foon be
came known, beyond the circle of his friends, that he
was the " Clergyman of the Diocefe of Durham" who

Letter to Lord Grey. 29

had publiflied (joth of June, 1819,) a Letter to Lord
Grey on the Roman Catholic queftion.* If all other
proofs of the author/hip were wanting, a convincing
one might be found in the way in which the writer
addrefles himfelf to his tafk. Firft of all there is lavifh
praife, and then there is as liberal blame. And this is
the way in which Mr. Phillpotts fpecially delights to
deal with opponents. His mode of treatment may be
called the lubricating procefs. The oil with which the
razor is plentifully fmeared, if it foftens the flefh, only
makes the gam the deeper. Thus, at the commence
ment of this letter, Lord Grey is, truly enough, de-
fcribed as cc eminently diftinguifhed by talents and
eloquence, and, above all, by a character for political
and private honour, which ftamped an additional value
on all his high endowments ;" while, at the clofe, Mr.
Phillpotts afTures him, though " in no invidious fenfe,"
that he has cc yet to learn what the pure fpirit of Chrif-
tianity is," and that it was " neceflkry that fome mem
ber of the Church of England fhould proteft publicly
againft opinions as injurious to the honour of that
Church as they are deftitute of all folid foundation.1'

This letter to Lord Grey was occafioned by an elo
quent and animated fpeech delivered by his lordfhip

* " A Letter to the Rt. Hon. Earl Grey, occafioned by his
Lordfhip's Speech in the Houfe of Lords, on moving the
fecond reading of his Bill for Abrogating the Declarations
contained in the 25th and 3Oth of Charles II, commonly
called 'the Teft againft Popery.'" This letter is figned,
" A Clergyman of the Diocefe of Durham."

30 Lord Grey's Motion.

in the Houfe of Lords, June the loth, 1819, on his
moving the fecond reading of the Roman Catholic Re
lief Bill, with fpecial reference to the Teft A6b. The
motion was rendered remarkable, among thofe which
were periodically made on the fame fubject, from its
having been feconded by the Bifhop of Norwich (Dr.
Bathurft), who refufed, as he faid,

" To make the fymbol of atoning grace
An office key, a pick-lock to a place."

But, in fpite of the epifcopal fanction thus accorded
to the Bill, it met with little fympathy in the Houfe,
and was lost by a majority of fifty-nine.

That the meafure had been defeated would have
been enough for moft men, but in the judgment of
Mr. Phillpotts it required a letter to make the vic
tory complete. Within the month, therefore, a let
ter was forthcoming. It opens, as has been already
faid, with fome complimentary remarks on the cha
racter and endowments of Lord Grey. The writer
then proceeds to fay that, though the Roman Catholic
queftion feems to him to be purely political, yet, fo
many religious topics had been unneceflarily dragged
into the difcuflion, and particularly by his lordfhip,
that he thinks it not foreign to his office to expofe
pofitions which are wholly untenable, and facts which
have been greatly mifapprehended.

There can be little doubt that Mr. Phillpotts pof-
fefled the requifite qualifications for the tafk which
he had undertaken, and that he fulfilled it, upon the

Tone of Mr. Phillpotts* Earlier Writings. 3 1

whole, with judgment and moderation ; but how far
it is becoming in a clergyman to mingle in a queftion
which he admits is purely political, for the fake of
expofing the bad theology of a ftatefman, mufl be de
termined, to fome extent, according to the fpirit and
feeling of the times. Now-a-days the attempt would
be intolerable, and would be met with cold difdain.
The offending paftor would be remitted to his parifh
with an unmiflakeable hint to mind his own bufinefs.
But fifty years ago the cafe was different. Clergymen
then mingled freely in all the contefts of a ftirring
age. It was not thought beneath the gravity of their
calling to aflume the part of whippers-in at elections,
or of political lampooners. A pamphlet had often
led the way to a ftall. Rich livings had been won by
ftill'more queftionable means. Hence it was that men
fitted to mine in the world of letters, or ambitious to
earn a minifter's regard, were dragged, however re
luctantly, into the whirlpool of political controverfy.
The fault was not entirely their own. They might,
indeed, have followed the obfcurer life of paftoral ufe-
fulnefs ; but, once having quitted it, they were im
pelled by the neceflities of an imperious age. And
this may help to account for the controverfial tone of
the whole of Mr. Phillpotts' writings, up to the time
of his elevation to the Epifcopal Bench. His political
fentiments were keen and well-defined, his temper was
ardent, his attachment to his party was ftrong : what
wonder, then, if, in an age which valued and rewarded
thefe qualities, he fhould often be feen in the front

32 Hardjhip of the Tefl.

rank of the battle, fingling out for combat the moft
giant-like of his opponents ?

But to return to the letter. Mr. Phillpotts readily
enough admits that there is <c a palpable anomaly in
exacting from civil officers a much more violent de
claration againft thefe tenets* than is required as a
qualification even for admittance into Holy Orders."

The injuftice of this is manifeft. But becaufe the
Teft was a hardmip it did not follow that henceforward
there mould be no fecurity at all. If, inftead of feek-
ing altogether to repeal the Teft, Lord Grey had fug-
gelled the adoption of fome milder form of fecurity,
he would in all probability have carried with him the
majority of the thinking men in the country;

But while Mr. Phillpotts admits that the object of
the Teft might be equally well obtained by adopting a
lefs offenfive form of fecurity, yet believing the pro-
pofitions embodied in it to be not only true, but of
main importance to the caufe of pure religion, he feels
it his duty to addrefs his lordfhip. And this brings
him to the chief fubjedl of his letter : —

"One of the moft ftriking chara&eriftics of your fpeech,"
he fays, " is a readinefs to inculcate the notion that there is,
in reality, very little difference of do&rine between the
Churches of England and of Rome. The attempt is not a
new one. It has long been the ufage of the moft wary advo
cates of the latter Church, when defending their caufe be
fore the Proteftants both of this country and of France, to
ftate their tenets, and defcribe their practices, in a manner

* Embodied in the Teft A&.

Churches of England and Rome. 3 3

the leaft offenfive to the principles of thofe whom they
addrefs. Such a policy, reftrained within the bounds of
truth and fincerity, would merit nothing but commendation.
Thefe, however, are not reftraints which the writers of that
communion have always thought it neceflary to obferve.
From the age of Bofluet to the prefent time there have
never been wanting men who will ftrain, or comprefs, the
doctrines of their Church to whatever point the interefts of
the day may require : and if the more ftaunch and artlefs
believers are fometimes {hocked by the latitude in which
they indulge, it is feldom difficult to prevent or to palliate
the fcandal of an open rupture."

A little further on he Turns up what he conceives to
be the chief differences in doctrine between the two
Churches: —

" If no political bias had influenced your judgment, it
would have been impoffible for you to overlook the wide
and irremovable barrier which feparates the tenets of your
own Church from the corruptions of Rome. You could
not have forgotten that the majority of our Articles are
framed in direct oppofition to thofe corruptions ; that in
what relates to the rule 6f Chriftian Faith — to man's
juftification — to the nature of good works, whether they be
meritorious — to the Church, its fallibility, and its authority —
to the duty of religious worfhip, whether it is to be con
fined to God, or communicated to the Virgin Mary, angels,
or faints — to the adoration of images and relics — to Common
Prayer in language underftood by all — to the Sacraments,
their number, matter, form, and efficacy — to the facrifice
of Chrift upon the Crofs, and the perfect propitiation and
fatisfa&ion wrought by it for the fins of men — to His me
diation and interceffion for us with the Father, — that in all
and every of thefe particulars, there are irreconcilable
differences between the two Churches."

34 Archbijhop Wake and

But by far the moft interefting part of this letter is
that which relates to the correfpondence of Archbifhop
Wake with the Doctors of the Sorbqnne. Lord Grey, in
the courfe of his fpeech, had quoted a pafTage from the
writings of this diftinguifhed prelate, fetting forth that,
in a comparifon between the Church of England and
the Church of Rome, " their articles of faith differed
very little, their difcipline ftill lefs, and that in funda
mentals they were nearly the fame." For the Church
of Rome evidently ought to be read the Gallican
Church ; and the letter, from which Lord Grey quotes,
relates to the fcheme which the Archbifhop had formed
of reconciling the Anglican and Gallican Churches. If
the flatement of fuch a keen controverfialift as Arch
bifhop Wake were left unexplained, the moft ferious
mifchief would be likely to enfue ; Mr. Phillpotts,
therefore, having devoted much time and trouble to
the confideration of this fubject, and having invoked
the aid of one of the greateft of living fcholars,
proceeds to fum up the refult of his refearches as
follows : —

" During the violent proceedings of the Court of Rome
againft that part of the Gallican Church which refufed to
receive the bull c Unigenitus ' as an ecclefiaftical law,
fome do&ors of the Sorbonne, particularly Du Pin, the
ableft and moft diftinguiftied among them, whether from
a fincere intention of fhaking off the Papal yoke, which
feemed to be borne with fome impatience throughout
France, or merely with the hope and purpofe of terrifying
the Vatican into better treatment of themfelves, or perhaps
from a mixture of both thefe motives, teftified their wifh for

the Doctors of the Sor bonne. 35

a reconciliation with the Church of England. Archbifhop
Wake, to whom this intimation was conveyed, anfwered,
as became a Chriftian Bifhop, in terms which at once be-
fpoke his anxious defire of peace and union, and his inflex
ible conftancy in the caufe of truth. In the progrefs of the
correfpondence the French Divines began to form a plan of
union, and even to ftate the terms on which they were wil
ling to effecl: it. Du Pin drew up a paper, entitled, 'Commo-
nltorium de Modis ineunda pacts inter Ecclefias Anglicanam
et GallicanamS Without entering largely into the contents
of this document (a copy of which is ftill extant among the
Wake MSS. in the library of Chrift Church, Oxford), it
may be fufficient to fay, that it examined feparately the
Articles of the Church of England, fpecifying the extent
to which agreement with them could be carried ; and that
in many important particulars great concefiions were made,
efpecially the fufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for falva-
tion, with a flight falvo for tradition, as not exhibiting new
Articles of Faith, but only confirming and illuftrating thofe
contained in Scripture, juftification by Faith alone, the fal
libility even of the Church of Rome, confidered as a par
ticular Church, were freely admitted. Indulgences were
limited to relaxations of temporal penances in this llfe^ the
worfhip of the Crofs, relics, and images, was reduced to an
external refpecl:, and that not of a religious nature ; the
invocation of faints feems to have been given up ; the
fitnefs of celebrating Divine Worfhip in the vulgar tongue
was not difputed— the Communion in both kinds was held
indifferent, and in the article of the fupremacy of the civil
magiftrate, fome not inconfiderable points were conceded.
Even tranfubftantiation, though the doctrine without the
name was affirmed, feems to have been retained only as a
fpeculative point, without involving the duties of adoring
the Hoft, or thofe other confequences which have made it
fo juftly revolting to all confiderate Proteftants. ' In our
Liturgy,' fays Wake himfelf, in a letter to his Englifh cor-

36 Archbijhop Wakes Attempt to

refpondent, c there is nothing but what they allow of, fave
the fmgle rubric relating to the Eucharift ; in theirs no
thing but what they agree may be laid afide, and yet the
public offices be never the worfe for it, or more imperfect
for want of it.' "

Still, notwithftanding thefe advances, the Archbifhop
was not very fanguine in his expectation of a reunion.

" Without the entire exclufion of the papal authority
from the Church of France, he defpaired of an effectual
accommodation ; with it he hoped for everything. This
therefore was the point to which he directed his main
efforts ; but this, he plainly faw, could only be accomplimed
through the co-operation of the Court. Some profpect of
fuch a co-operation was for a while prefented. The Regent
and his minifter mowed themfelves favourable, but the arti
fices of Rome prevailed ; and the attraction of a Cardinal's
hat for the infamous Du Bois was fufficient to extinguifti the
dawn of reformation in France, almoft as foon as it had
arifen. It was after the Archbifhop's hopes of the affiftance
of the Court had proved illufory, that he wrote to Du Pin
the letter from which your Lordftiip's quotation was taken j
— and I may now venture to afk, whether anything more
fallacious can be devifed, than to reprefent the language of
Wake addrefled, under fuch circumftances, to Du Pin, as in
tended to characterize the doctrine and difcipline of the
Church of Rome ? "

The remarks upon tranfubftantiation which follow
merit little notice, except in fo far as the fubject
affords to Mr. Phillpotts an opportunity of vindi
cating the doctrine of the Real Prefence. The fame
obfervation applies to his treatment of thofe portions
of the Declaration which relate to the " invocation of
faints,'* and " the idolatrous nature of the facrifice of
the mafs."

reconcile Anglican and Galilean Churches. 37

Both of thefe topics might well have been omitted
altogether, had not the remarks of Lord Grey feemed
to Mr. Phillpotts to demand fome notice. This was
the more neceffary fince the object of his lord-
fhip had been, for political purpofes, to reprefent
the creed and the difcipline of the Church of Rome
as nearly in accordance with thofe of the Church of
England. He had not calculated, however, upon
meeting with an adverfary, like Mr. Phillpotts, who
would follow him through all the mazes of a mifting
controverfy with inexorable pertinacity. The accuracy
with which he fathomed Lord Grey's theology is fet
forth by himfelf with quiet irony fix years later, when
he fays of Dr. Milner's End of Controverfy y that it
" is the grand ftorehoufe from which a main portion
of the facts and evidence, adduced by the noble Earl,
appears to have been drawn ; and a nice obferver might,
perhaps, without much difficulty, felect fome fix pages
of this work, in which all the theological learning dif-
played in that memorable debate would be found to be
comprifed."

Having difpofed of the queftion of the Teft, Mr.
Phillpotts proceeds to a part of Lord Grey's fpeech,
which, as it appears to him to cc affect the honour of
the Church of which he is a minifter," calls for fpecial
notice. His lordfhip appealed to the Epifcopal
Bench "whether the i8th Article of the Church of
England, or that part of the Liturgy which it had
been the well-known wifh of our pious Sovereign to
fee withdrawn, are congenial to the pure fpirit of

38 Defence of the Athanajian Creed.

Chriftianity." It was underftood that the part of the
Liturgy referred to was the Athanafian Creed.
However high or honoured the name that might be
cited againft it, Mr. Phillpotts rightly felt that there
was but one courfe open to any minifter who valued
confiftency above favour, and that was to profefs his
firm convi&ion that the Creed was not only true in
its doctrine, but moft highly ferviceable in its ufe.

" The object of the Creed," he well fays, u is to proclaim
belief in thofe great and diftinguifhing do&rines of our reli
gion, the Trinity of Perfons in the Godhead, and the Incar
nation of the Blefled Son j do&rines, which they who hold
them cannot but efteem of eflential importance, for on them
depends the honour which is due to our Redeemer and our
San&ifier. It is true, that a fimple profeflion of Faith
fufficed for the infant Church ; that before the Divinity of
the fecond and third Perfons (implied in the Apoftles' Creed)
was aflailed by heretics, it was not deemed neceflary to
depart from the fimple words of Scripture. But when the
words of Scripture were ufed in a fenfe which depraved its
meaning, and difhonoured the object of Chriftian worfhip,
it became neceflary to guard the true faith by an expofition,
which the fubtlety of the adverfary could not pervert. The
Creed in queftion efte&s this purpofe ; it both ftates plainly
what Scripture teaches of each of the Divine Perfons, and
alfo introduces diftinclions, which prevent the unwary from
being mifled by thofe, who, under the words of Scripture,
maintain opinions inconfiftent with its higheft truths. But
thefe diftin&ions need not be regarded by any who hold the
main doclrine."

Every Churchman will be thankful for this manly
expofition of the value of the Creed. Mr. Phillpotts
then proceeds : —

The Condemnatory Claufes. 39

"The condemning or cautionary claufes, (call them which
you will,) apply to the Catholic Faith generally, and to the
do6trines of the Trinity and Incarnation in particular : and he
who taxes them as uncharitable, would do well to remember,
that as they fay not lefs, fo neither do they fay more, thano ur
Lord Himfelf pronounced of every one ' that believeth not.'
The only queftion which can be raifed is about the truth of
the doctrine ; for they who admit it to be true, muft fee that
it is fundamental, that the denial of it muft come within that
denunciation which He, Who is emphatically ftyled * Love,'
forbore not to make."

More on this fubjecl: occurs further on. Mean
while enough has been faid to give promife of the
ability and profound theological learning which Mr.
Phillpotts brought to his conteft with Mr. Charles
Butler. This letter to Lord Grey is manly in tone,
and, with the exception of fome few expreflions to
wards the end, temperate in diction. The writer is
evidently not an entire exclufionift ; but he is un
willing to remove the Roman Catholic Difabilities
without receiving fufficient fecurity for the mainte
nance of Church and State.

CHAPTER IV.

Meetings of diftrejjed Manufacturers at Birmingham and
Leeds. A Reform Meeting at Manchejier charged by the
Yeomanry Cavalry. A great number of People fabred and
trodden under foot. Several Lives loft. Indifcreet Hajte of
the Magiftrates. Their Conduct approved by Government.
Letter of Thanks from the Prince Regent. Feeling of the
Country. Subfcription Lifts for the Sufferers. Addrefs of
the Lord Mayor and Citizens to the Prince Regent. His
Reply. Indignation Meetings held in the Provinces. The
Durham Meeting. The Refolutions. A Declaration again/I
the Meeting drawn up and figned. The Name of Mr.
Phillpotts among the fignatures. An Abftraft of the Declara
tion. Mr. Phillpotts addrejfes a Letter to the Freeholders of the
County of Durham. His Motive for doing fo. Whether it
was necejfaryfor him to come forward. The real Objeft of his
Pamphlet. The Proceedings of the Durham Meeting conducted
with Propriety. Mr. Phillpotts' farcajtic Defcription of it.
His Statement of the Proceedings of the Meeting. Attack
upon Mr. Lambton. Its Injustice. EffeEt of the Letter to
the Freeholders of the County of Durham. Anonymous
Anfwers to it. Article in the Edinburgh Review. A
cheap Edition of it. Mr. Phillpotts9 Statement in reply.
Its Character. Mr. Phillpotts dreaded as an adverfary.
His Defcription of " Liberals." His Ejtimate of the
Reviewer.

jHE unhappy events which occurred at
Manchester, in 1819, afforded to Mr.
Phillpotts an opportunity, which he was
by no means flow to embrace, of appear
ing before the public as the champion of Government.
During the fummer large meetings of diftrefled

Reform Meeting at Manchejler. 41

manufacturers were held at Birmingham, Leeds, and
other centres of labour. Matters were carried fo far
that a " legiflatorial attorney " was elected to reprefent
the people of the former place. On the 9th of Auguft a
fimilar meeting was appointed to be held at Man-
chefter ; but, on the magiftrates declaring that an
afTembly for fuch a purpofe was illegal, it was aban
doned, and another meeting was announced for the
1 6th of Auguft, for the purpofe of petitioning for a
Reform in Parliamentary reprefentation. The fum-
mons was not difregarded, and an immenfe multitude
of people, computed by fome at 80,000, aflembled in
a piece of ground called S. Peter's field. The chief
orator was Mr. Hunt, who harangued the aflembly
from a huftings made of waggons, and furmounted
by flags bearing the infcription, <f No Corn Laws,'*
" Annual Parliaments," " Univerfal Suffrage," "Vote
by Ballot," and other devices dear to popular agitators.
While he was fpeaking, and before any breach of the
peace had occurred, the Yeomanry Cavalry, fupported
by the I5th HufTars, dafhed into the crowd with
fabres drawn. No refiftance was offered. Mr. Hunt
and others were made prifoners, and, had it not been
for the prompt interference of Mr. Nadin, a chief
conftable, the yeomanry would have fulfilled their
intention of cutting him to pieces. Another charge
was then made at the flags, during which numbers of
people, including a peace-officer, were fabred and
trodden under foot. So little difcrimination was
mown by the excited foldiers that a gentleman who

42 Indifcreet Hafte of the Magiftrates.

was taking notes for the Times was arrefted, and
carried off to prifon. No aft of violence had been
attempted on the part of the crowd, which was un
armed, until the charge of the yeomanry, and no one
prefent knew that the Riot Act had been read.

Such is an outline of this terrible outrage, in which
feveral defencelefs men loft their lives, and others, in
cluding women and children, were ferioufly injured.
There can be no doubt that the magiftrates, in the
fervour of their loyal zeal, exhibited far too great hafte
upon this unhappy occafion, and having once directed
the yeomanry againft the crowd, they were unable to
reftrain them. Neverthelefs, their conduct was ap
proved by Government, the approbation being, as an
acute thinker * remarked, " the fuppofed price of
fupport from the Tories in that part of the country."
Three days after the difafter, the Prince Regent wrote
to the Home Secretary (Lord Sidmouth), from his
yacht at fea, conveying his approbation and high
commendation of the conduct of the magiftrates and
civil authorities at Manchefter, as well as of the
officers and troops, both regular and yeomanry
cavalry, whofe firmnefs and effectual fupport of the
civil power preferved the peace of the town upon that
moft critical occafion.

The fenfation created throughout the country by thefe
events was moft profound. It feemed incredible that
an act of wanton butchery, fuch as could be juftified

* Lord Dudley, Let. 43, to Bp. Copleftone.

Feeling of the Country. 43

only by the laft extremity, fhould be endorfed by the
higher! powers in the land. Immenfe fympathy, there
fore, was manifefted for the fufferers, and in London
and Liverpool it took the fhape of liberal pecuniary
contributions. The excitement reached its height
when it became known that feveral bills for cutting
and wounding, which had been prefented to the Grand
Jury at Lancafter, againft various members of the
yeomanry corps, had been thrown out, and that the
magiftrates had refufed to commit for charges con
nected with the 1 6th of Auguft which had been
brought before them.

It was under fuch circumftances as thefe that a
Common Council of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and
citizens of London was held on September the pth, at
which a refpectful addrefs to the Prince Regent was
agreed upon, praying him to inftitute an immediate
and effectual inquiry into the outrages that had been
committed, and to caufe the guilty perpetrators thereof
to be brought to fignal and condign punifhment. His
Royal Highnefs returned a reply which feverely cen-
fured the conduct of his petitioners, and peremptorily
refufed the inquiry which they fought.

But the demand for prompt and impartial invefti-
gation was not fo eafily to be fet afide. The fpirit
of the country was fairly roufed. People who acknow
ledged no fympathy with the opinions of the Radical
Reformers of Manchefter felt that an outrage had
been committed upon the liberty of the fubject. Many
large cities and towns, therefore, following the ex-

44 Indignation Meetings

ample of London, held meetings, and, with more or
lefs excitement, adopted fimilar refolutions. Amongft
other places, a very influential meeting of the gentry
and freeholders of the County of Durham was held on
the 2 1 ft of October, in the County Hall, Durham, in
confequence of a numeroufly-figned requifition which
had been prefented to the High Sheriff, the Hon.
W. Keppel Barrington. At eleven o'clock that gen
tleman, accompanied by Mr. Lambton and Mr.
Powlett, members for the county, and others who had
figned the requifition, entered the hall. The doors
being thrown open, the general public were admitted,
and the building was immediately filled with a crowd
of well-drefTed people, who had for fome time pre-
vioufly collected around. After the ufual prelimi
naries, and fome apologies from the fherifF for his in
experience in public affairs, Dr. Fenwick propofed,
and George Baker, Efq., feconded, the following Refo
lutions, which were carried without one difTentient
voice : —

" i . That it is contrary to the principles of the Confti-
tution, and a dangerous invafion of one of its moft important
privileges, forcibly to interrupt and difperfe any meeting of
the people, legally aflembled, and peaceably held, for the
confideration of any matter affe&ing the public welfare.

" 2. That the difperfion of the Meeting held at Man-
chefter on the i6th of Auguft laft, by a military force,
whereby many of his Majefty's fubje£ls were grievoufly
wounded, and fome a&ually killed, has filled us with anxiety
and alarm, and that we have feen with aftonimmen t and
regret the approbation which his Royal Highnefs the Prince

held in the Provinces. 45

Regent has, without any fufficient opportunity for inquiry,
been advifed to give to thofe perfons concerned in the direc
tion and execution of that meafure.

" 3. That, although nothing has appeared which juftifies
the conduct of the Magiftrates and Yeomanry on that occa-
fion, we are unwilling to pronounce a pofitive cenfure upon
it, without hearing all that can be alleged in their defence ;
but that we feel it to be our duty to demand a ftricl: and
folemn inveftigation of occurrences, which have proved fo
calamitous to fo many of our fellow-fubje&s, and which
tend to the eftabliftiment of a precedent of the utmoft
danger to the liberties of the country.

" 4. That while we thus exprefs our opinion, we difclaim
any approbation of the political principles of thofe by whom
the Meeting at Manchefter was convened, and declare our
unalterable attachment to the Conftitution, and firm deter
mination to fupport the authority of the laws againft who
ever may violate them.

" 5. That an humble Addrefs be therefore prefented to his
Royal Highnefs the Prince Regent, conformable to the
tenor of the above Refolutions."

Mr. Phillpotts had refufed to take any part in this
Meeting, having previoufly appended his name to a
" Declaration " which had been drawn up and figned
by fome noblemen, magiftrates, clergy, and others, at
the fuggeftion of Lord Sidmouth, who had advifed
that " fome of the moft refpedable perfons in the
kingdom mould meet and agree upon fuch a Decla
ration as the crifis calls for, and, after having publicly
announced it, leave copies of it at different houfes of
refort for fignature."

The Declaration of " the nobility, gentry, clergy,
and freeholders of the County of Durham," com-

46 Abftratt of the

mences with a ftatement, on the part of thofe who
figned it, that they feel a proper and conftitutional
jealoufy for the maintenance of their rights and privi
leges, and that they are determined that no effort mall
be wanting on their part to tranfmit them unimpaired
to pofterity. Having made this unequivocal declara
tion, -they go on to fay that they fincerely deplore
the unhappy occurrences which have lately taken place
at Manchefter, and they truft, that, in order to allay
the popular ferment, as well as in juftice to thofe who
have fo loudly been accufed of being the authors of
the troubles, the legal inveftigation of the whole of
thefe tranfactions, which has already been inftituted,
may fpeedily be brought to a clofe. They next lay it
down, as a fundamental law of the country, that no
one is to be condemned unheard, and continue, " mall
we then fuffer the magiftrates of the land, and its brave
conftitutional defenders, the yeomanry, not only to
be vilified and abufed, but even to have fentence
pronounced againft them in their abfence, and without
having an opportunity of defending themfelves?"
They then declare that they will fufpend their judg
ment, and call upon their fellow-countrymen to do
the fame. Reference is next made to the agitated
and almoft convulfed ftate of the country, and the
rapid ftrides which fedition and blafphemy are every
where making. Firmly imprefTed with thefe ideas, the
declarationifts exprefs their determination not to attend
any county meeting, to difcufs matters connected with
the late tranfadions at Manchefter, and enter their

Durham Declaration. 47

proteft againft all fuch difcuffions, as not only unne-
ceflary and premature, but as calculated to interfere
with the impartial and difpaflionate judgment of thofe
by whom alone the queftion can be conftitutionally
decided, and to promote the objects of turbulent and
factious men. They conclude by faying, <f We fo-
lemnly, in the face of our country, declare, that we
will collectively and individually defend, to the utmoft
of our power, the altars of our God, the throne of
our king, and the glorious free conftitution of the
country."

This cc Declaration" is dated Odlober 19, 1819, two
days before the county meeting, and bears fixty-feven
fignatures. Copies of it were fubfequently fent for fig-
nature to other places in the county, including Bimop
Auckland, Darlington, Stockton, Gatelhead, Walfing-
ham, South Shields, Sunderland, Barnard Caftle, Stain-
drop, and Newcaftle.

Mr. Phillpotts having thus vindicated his title to be
confidered one of cc the moft refpedlable perfons in the
kingdom," in the ministerial acceptation of thofe
words, proceeded to addrefs a letter to the freeholders
of the County of Durham, which appeared October
the 26th, five days after the meeting. His motive for
coming forward is thus given by himfelf : —

" I am one of thofe who have affixed their fignatures to
the c Declaration' which is now circulating through the
county, and is, I hear, welcomed in every part of it with
ardent approbation. Thofe who fign it are faid to have
been reproached by one of the reprefentatives of the county,

48 The Durham Meeting ;

Mr. Lambton, as afraid to come manfully forward and avow
their fentiments in the face of thofe who differ from them.
To that defiance, I for one, am not unwilling to anfwer.
The Declaration itfelf has explained fome of the reafons
which kept me from giving my anfwer where it was de
manded j and I cannot hefitate to confefs, that to harangue
a meeting, in which an impartial hearing could not be
hoped for (even if the fubjeft had created no objections),
would have ill accorded with my perfonal or profeffional
feelings. A philofopher of old declined arguing a point
with a Roman Emperor, * I do not difpute,' faid he, * with
a man who has forty legions/ In like manner, the hon.
gentleman {hall have his own way, as far as I am con
cerned, when he has a mob on his fide. But I have not
the fame difficulty in meeting him in print ; we are then
on terms of equality. The reading public will allow to
each of us the due, and only the due, weight of his refpec-
tive arguments ; and I cannot affe&, what affuredly I do
not feel, that there is anything, either in the authority or in
the talents of that gentleman, to make an ordinary man
backward to cope with him. In truth, backwardnefs at the
prefent moment would argue, not fo much diffidence in our
abilities, as treachery to our caufe."

Whether it is a fair ufe of terms to defignate
a meeting prefided over by the high fheriff, fup-
ported by two county reprefentatives, cc a mob," it is
fcarcely worth while to inquire ; but whether it was
at all neceflary for Mr. Phillpotts to appeal to the
public on fuch a matter as this, is a queftion which will
be anfwered according as people think on the fubject
of political pamphlets being made a ftepping-ftone to
ecclefiaftical preferment. If he believed that it was a
point of honour to take up the gauntlet thrown down,
as he imagined, by thofe who defired inquiry, he had

conduced 'with Propriety. 49

been anticipated in his chivalrous defign, for already
there was another clerical champion in the field, in his
own diocefe, the Rev. John Davifon, Reclor of Wafh-
ington, whofe popularity and talents fecured for his
pamphlet an extenfive circulation.

But, in truth, while Mr. Phillpotts was endeavour
ing to delude himfelf into the belief that it was needful
to defend himfelf 'and his co-declarationifts, he very
foon found himfelf writing a letter the manifeft object
of which was to defend the Government. Accordingly,
as his pamphlet proceeds, his natural acutenefs is too
great to allow him to be blinded by the plea of felf-
vindication.

" It is an unpopular courfe," he fays, "at any time to
ftep forward as the advocate of Minifters,on a difputed point.
He who undertakes that office is commonly fuppofed to have
other motives than a love of juftice."

Thefe two fentences, paving the way for a defence of
the Minifters which immediately follows, furnim the
key to the whole of the pamphlet. The minifters are
in ill-odour ; Parliament is not likely to meet for the
prefent; popular frenzy is at its higheft. Anything
that may be faid to ftifle inquiry will not be taken
amifs when better days come round. But while this
is the obvious aim of the letter, it is only juftice to
Mr. Phillpotts to give full effect to that part of it which
relates efpecially to the county meeting at Durham.
Whether fuch a meeting ought to have been held it is
immaterial to inquire. That its deliberations were

E

50 Mr. Phillpotts' Animadverfions

conduced with propriety is allowed by Mr. Phillpotts
himfelf, when he fays, —

" I readily admit, that if any fteps were to be taken, it
could not be expe&ed that a more moderate courfe would be
purfued than is prefented in the Refolutions of the meeting."

It is true that this is qualified, a little further on,
by a defcription of the conduct of thofe who attended
the meeting, which is, perhaps, more humorous than
juft: —

<c It amounts, at leaft, to finding a bill of indidhnent againft
the magiftrates, or the military, againft fome of whom, be it
remembered, bills were in fa<£t laid before the grand jury of
Lancafhire, and by them thrown out. The grand jury at
Lancafter were fworn that they would c diligently inquire
and true prefentment make,' and they had witnefles before
them, who were fworn to fpeak the truth. Under thefe cir-
cumftances, they found it their confcientious duty to reject
the bills. The gentlemen in our court at Durham have the
advantage of not being fettered in their inquefts by the re-
ftraint of an oath, and they have the greater advantage of
being able to give as much credit as they pleafe to all the un
authorized ftatements which have iflued from the prefs, under
a ftate of public feeling inflamed and agitated beyond exam
ple. Under thefe circumftances they feel it their painful
duty to contradict the jurors of Lancaftiire, and to pronounce
on the bills accordingly."

In difcufling the proceedings of the meeting, Mr.
Phillpotts ftates the cafe thus :— -

" The meafure to be defended is this— the pronouncing
that there is ^prima facie cafe againft the magiftrates and
military employed at Manchefter, and that it is neceflary for
county meetings to found on this cafe the demand of an in-

on the Durham Meeting. 5 i

veftigation. Here are two points to be made good in order
to juftify the proceedings of Thurfday ; ift, that there is
fuch a prima facie cafe as is aflerted ; 2nd, that it is right
to declare that there is, and, in confequence, to demand an
investigation.

"Now into the firft queftion it is not my intention to enter,
further than to remind the gentlemen who have moved the
meafure, to what point our knowledge of the ftate of the
cafe, from admitted facts of an authoritative character, really
extends. It is this; that feveral perfons at the head of the
meeting at Manchefter were apprehended, and detained for
high treafon, of which that meeting was the alleged overt
act; that after their detention for feveral days, the charge of
high treafon was given up, and the parties were held to bail
for a confpiracy to overturn the Government, and alter the
laws of the land by force ; that bills of indictment were
preferred againft certain perfons concerned in difperfmg the
meeting by force ; the confequence of which force was the
lofs of feveral lives — and that thefe bills were thrown out.
This, I fay, is the amount of all that is known from admitted
facts of an authoritative character ; and if it were neceflary
to come to any conclufion on the fubject, (which I apprehend
that it is not,) I fliould contend that the fair prefumption, as
far as it goes, is againft the legality and the peaceablenefs of
the meeting in queftion ; for there can be no doubt, that if
the meeting was legally held, and peaceably conducted, all
who were engaged in difperfmg it by force would be guilty
of murder, if the confequence of that force was the lofs
of lives.

" But it is alleged in one of the Refolutions that c nothing
has appeared which juftifies the conduct of the magiftrates
and the yeomanry ;' and it is an obfervation which we hear
continually from well meaning perfons that it is ftrange that
no attempts ftiould be made by them to difprove charges
which are refounded from one end of the kingdom to the
other. Has it never occurred to any of thefe good people

52 Mr. Phillpotts Animadverjions

that a profecution is now in progrefs which muft fhow
whether there be a juftification or not ?* Will they take
the trouble of reflecting whether it may not be prudent for
thefe parties, in refpeft to themfelves, to referve the publi
cation of their cafe till it (hall be made known by the pro
ceedings in the Court of Law ? And even if it be not thus
prudent in refpecl: of themfelves, at leaft that it may be of
high importance to the due courfe of juftice in refpe6t to
others ? Are they to be driven by clamour to make public
the evidence which is to pafs on the trial of the alleged
confpirators, .and fo to defeat all reafonable probability of
their conviction ? The monftrous and palpable injuftice of
fuch a demand would make it incredible that fo large a
portion of the public fhould fhow it any favour, if expe
rience had not repeatedly proved that no abfurdity is too
grofs for the minds of the people, when duly heated to
admit it. The very forbearance from all publication may
be, and apparently is, the bounden, but certainly not the
pleafmg duty of thefe victims of popular delufion ; and the
rigid manner in which it is difcharged by them may pro
bably be found hereafter to merit the gratitude of every
true friend of his country."

Having thus difpofed of, the firft of his pofitions,
Mr. Phillpotts proceeds : —

" The next confideration is, whether, fuppofing fuch a
cafe to exift, it is proper to declare that it exifts ; and this
involves one of the moft ferious queftions that can be put

* Hunt and his aflbciates were tried at York at the Spring
Affixes in 1820. The trial lafted ten days, and ended in the
conviction of nine of their number for holding an unlawful
meeting and exciting difcontent. On the I5th of May fol
lowing, Hunt was fentenced to two years and fix months'
imprifonment, and the reft to one year's imprifonment.

on the Durham Meeting. 53

before Englifhmen. It is in fa& no lefs than this : whether
it is right for popular meetings to announce in this cafe
their judgment on the apparent merits of a queftion which
is in the courfe of judicial investigation. On this fubje& fo
much has been better faid by others, and, in truth, fo much
muft occur to every plain underftanding, that I {hall have
no occafion to dwell long upon it. Gentlemen, I will not
go the whole length of aflerting that it never can be right
thus to anticipate the regular courfe of law ; for on political
fubje&s nothing univerfal can be rationally affirmed ; the
beft and moft certain principle muft admit of modifications
and exceptions ; and prudence alone can decide (an en
lightened and genuine prudence) when the occafion for
thefe exceptions and modifications has actually arifen. But
thus much I think will readily be granted to me, that
nothing ftiort of a great and unequivocal good to be obtained,
or a fore and very preffing grievance to be removed can
juftify any moderately prudent (I might fay any moderately
imprudent) perfons in wifhing to interfere with the procefs
of law. A manifeft and moft ferious evil is fure to be in
curred; the benefit fought, therefore, ought to be not only
very great, but very certain. The proof of this refts alto
gether upon thofe who propofe the experiment. I have
attended to all the arguments reported to have been advanced
at our county meeting, and muft frankly confefs that I
have rifen from the inquiry more confirmed than before of
the extreme unfitnefs of the proceedings of that meeting."

Then follows an examination of the arguments
used at the meeting, which offers little intereft at the
prefent time. If the letter had ended here, it would
have been well. Though it might have added little
to the reputation of Mr. Phillpotts as an accurate and
profound thinker, and muft afluredly have created
fufpicions of his motives, yet it would not have

54 Attack upon Mr. Lamb ton.

marked him out as a man eager to give battle to a
political adverfary with weapons of a more queftion-
able kind than mere playful fatire. Mr. Lambton
(afterwards Earl of Durham) had attended the meeting,
and after the Refolutions had been propofed and
feconded, it was natural enough, as one of the repre-
fentatives of the county, that he fhould fay a few
words. However much people may differ from the
political fentiments of this gentleman, there certainly is
nothing in his fpeech to juftify the language applied to
it by Mr. Phillpotts : — <c Nothing fhort of running the
full career of rafhnefs and peril could glut his morbid
avidity of diftinction." And then he goes on to fay, that,
if a verdict of a jury mall pronounce Hunt and his com
rades guilty of the charge laid againft them, " (lander
of the mofl mifchievous and gigantic kind will have
been uttered by him, without rational motive, or in
telligible excufe. I envy him not his feelings on fuch
a confummation; ftill lefs do I envy him, if he mail
then have no feelings at all." He then charges Mr.
Lambton with Cf playing with the torch of fedition, and
wantonly toiling it about amidft the combuftible matter
which furrounds him," and concludes by faying, —

"Thefe are not times when the diftempered fpirit of the
multitude fhould be ftill further inflamed by men who ought
to exert the influence belonging to their ftation in allaying
heats and pacifying difcontents."

All this may be very forcible, but it is fcarcely the
way in which a clergyman fhould addrefs a gentleman
of high defcent and unblemifhed life, whofe only

Its Injujiice. 55

offence upon this occafion feems to have been that he
had the misfortune of differing from Mr. Phillpotts
on an important queftion which was juft then occupy
ing the thoughts of the entire country. Such a dif-
play of party feeling could only have the effect of
defeating its own end. And fo it turned out ; for, in-
ftead of helping the caufe which it was written to
ferve, this letter created a prejudice againft the fubfe-
quent writings of Mr. Phillpotts, which has outlived
the memory of this particular event.

It is true that he explained much of this afperity in
his anfwer to the article in the Edinburgh Review y
which next comes under confideration ; but the mif-
fortune was that many people read his letter who
never faw the explanation. Thus, then, friends were
alarmed, enemies were incenfed, and thofe who were
neither friends nor enemies felt that a great miftake had
been made, and that a fpirit of rancour had been
excited by this pamphlet which it might take a life
time of conciliation to allay.

Many anonymous anfwers quickly iflued from
the prefs. Amongft thefe is to be reckoned an
article in the Edinburgh Review (No. 64), entitled,
" Neceflity of Parliamentary Enquiry," which, while
pro fe fling to be a review of the pamphlet of Mr.
Phillpotts, was in reality directed againft himfelf.
The author of it was commonly fuppofed to be one
of the moft diftinguifhed of the early contributors
to that journal, who, adding the rank of a fenator to
the reputation of an orator, was an adverfary that few

56 Mr. Phlllpotts and

men would dare to defpife. This article was widely
read, and a cheap edition of it (price twopence)
was rapidly diftributed throughout the county of
Durham.

Thefe circumftances induced Mr. Phillpotts to
publifh a ftatement in reply to it,* which appeared in
January, 1820. And this, it muft be confefled, is a
moft triumphant expoftire -both of the mallownefs of
the reviewer's arguments and the feelings which had
guided him in writing. It was neceflary promptly
to crum fo powerful an antagonift as Mr. Phillpotts
had fhown himfelf to be, and therefore the veteran
reviewer, armed with malice and mifreprefentation, to
which the power of his cultivated mind lent a double
force, ftepped forth from the ranks to give him battle.
But if Mr. Phillpotts was to blame for the tone of
his pamphlet, the reviewer foon mowed that he was
incapable of teaching him better manners. That his
labours mould have met with fuch a recognition was
in reality an indication of the value attached to them
by his opponents. A diftinguifhed public character
would not for nothing have remitted his exertions in
a higher fphere to refume thofe of a review, while the
publication of his article in a cheaper form fhowed
the anxiety of his party to make the moft of his
fervices.

* " Remarks on an Article in the Edinburgh Review (No.
64) entitled, * Neceflity of Parliamentary Enquiry/ by the
Rev. H. Phillpotts, M.A., Author of a Letter to the Free
holders of Durham, which that Article profefles to review."

the Edinburgh Reviewer. §j

It is needlefs to go through this pamphlet in detail,
fmce it is merely an expofure of the reviewer's blunders,
fophiftry, and malignity. One extract, however, may
be commended to the attention of cc liberals " of every
made :—

" To fay the truth, this is not the firft time that I have
had occafion to admire the exquifite felicity with which the
lovers of free difcuffion and manly inquiry can adjuft their
graduated fcale of crimes and punimments. All who profefs
the fame c liberal fentiments ' as themfelves, are at once in-
vefted with an undefined and undefinable privilege. Thefe
* chartered libertines ' may fay what they pleafe, abufe whom
they pleafe and how they pleafe — they may run to the ex
treme verge of legal endurance, and even occafionally over-
ftep into the confines of (lander or fedition. At the worft
it is only a generous indifcretion — while the firft perfon who
afks them, why do ye fo ? has the whole fraternity let loofe
upon him, unlefs he cuts and fquares his diction to the nice
pattern which fuits their felf-complacency."

The whole of this reply is well written, and if the
reviewer is fomewhat feverely handled, he richly
deferves it. Mr. Phillpotts does not affecl: to defpife
his adverfary; but, while paying a becoming tribute to
his talents, he fails not to deplore the manifeftation of
" the coarfeft admixture of prejudice and paflion, per
verted by party fpirit, and abufed to the worft purpofes
of wanton fophiftication, or wilful injuftice."

CHAPTER V.

Further Preferment of Mr. Phillpotts. His Competence, and
proper ufe of it. The Living of Stanhope. Held by Three
Prelates in fucceffion. Mr. Phillpotts refigns his Stall in
Durham Cathedral. A Defcription of Stanhope. Mr. Phill
potts builds a Reftory-houfe. Reminifcences of his Incum
bency. Diligence in Parochial Duties. An aftive Magi/irate.
His Legal Abilities.

N the year following the publication of
Mr. Phillpotts' letter to the freeholders
of the county of Durham (1820), he
received a fplendid mark of his bifhop's
regard in the fhape of a large living. He was already
well provided for, but his new benefice eclipfed all his
other preferment. In worldly circum fiances, then, he
was fortunate enough, and at no time of his life could
he ever have known what it was to be a needy man.
A rare piece of good fortune for one of his profeflion,
when it is remembered that he inherited no patrimo
nial eftates, and was not the reprefentative of an
historical name. Many of our great men

" Have been by need to full perfe&ion brought ;"

but if Mr. Phillpotts never pafled through this bitter
ordeal, he at leaft mowed himfelf capable of braving

The Living of Stanhope. 59

the more fedu&ive accompaniments of affluence. A
canonry was no Capua to him ; and if honours and
preferment were mowered upon him, they were not
ufed for mean and felfifh ends.

On the 20th of September, 1 820, he was collated to the
Rectory of Stanhope— one of the moft valuable, if not
the moft valuable living in England. This princely bene
fice had been held by three prelates in fucceflion, who
were the immediate predecefTors of Mr. Phillpotts —
Dr. Butler, Bimop of Briftol, Dr. Keene, Bifliop of
Chefter, and Dr. Thurlow, Bifhop of Lincoln. If
precedent, therefore, went for anything, it was not
hard to predict what his ultimate fate might be. On
being prefented to this living he refigned his ftall in
Durham Cathedral.

Stanhope, the fcene of Mr. Phillpotts' future
paftoral labours, is a town of no great pretenfions on
the north bank of the Wear, and is chiefly inhabited
by miners. It was raifed to the dignity of a market
town in 1421. The church is a plain and ancient
fabric, ftanding on rifing ground to the north of the
town. At no great diftance ftands an ancient manor-
houfe, the feat of the old hiftorical family of Feather-
ftonhaugh, the laft of whom was killed at the battle
of Hochftadt. In the woods of Stanhope Park the
prince-bifhops of Durham ufed to hold their great
foreft hunts, the tenants being obliged to furnifh
neceflaries for them and their fuite, befides maintain
ing their dogs and huntfmen.

The population of Stanhope, and other circum-

60 A Rettory-houfe built.

ftances of intereft conneded with the parifti, will come
under confideration further on.

One of Mr. Phillpotts' earlieft ads after becoming
rector was to commence the erection of a parfonage-
houfe, as well as a residence for the curate. It mould
be recorded to his credit that he undertook this entirely
at his own private expenfe, without burdening the
living with any charge. The fum expended was about
I2,ooo/. The houfe is very large, and occupied a
confiderable time in building. During this period Mr.
Phillpotts refided in Durham.

His incumbency is well remembered, and he appears
in the main to have conciliated the regard of the
parifhioners. Shortly after his elevation to the Epifcopal
bench an old woman remarked to his fucceflbr that he
had fent two of her fons to heaven — a ftrong expreflion,
not to be repeated to fcorners, but intimating, as it was
underftood, that he had diligently and faithfully
attended them till their death, and had been the
inftrument in God's hands of faving their fouls. This
anecdote is enough to mow that neither his cathedral
duties at Chefter, nor the theological and political
ftudies in which he was now fo deeply immerfed,
diverted him from the paramount obligation of paftoral
vigilance. The petition of the inhabitants of Stanhope
againft his holding that living in commendam with the
See of Exeter will be examined in its proper place.

At this time Mr. Phillpotts was gratifying a tafte for
legal matters, which had early difplayed itfelf, by
difcharging with great regularity the duties of a county

Mr. Phillpotts* Legal Abilities. 61

magiftrate. His aptitude for this kind of bufmefs
was very remarkable. He became pofTefled by intui
tion of that which to others was matter of laborious
ftudy; and the magiftrate's clerk ufed to aver that
Mr. Phillpotts could always tell what would be in an
Act of Parliament before it came out.

CHAPTER VI.

Return of tjhieen Caroline to England^ and the Proceedings con-
fequent upon it. Gave occafton to a Pamphlet by Mr. P hill-
potts. Injudicious Conduct of the Miniftry. Popular Feeling
excited againft them. Meetings held in various parts of
the Country. All Ranks took part in them. The Durham
Meeting. The Speakers. The Addrefs. Reference in It to
Spirit of Dif content exifting In the Country. Impropriety of
this. A Counter- Addrefs agreed upon by the Clergy. Their
Juftification+for taking this ftep. Mr. Phillpotts the Pro-
pofer of it. Hoftile Feeling manifested againft the Clergy.
Not confined to the Lower Orders. The Northumberland
Meeting at Morpeth. Lord Grey's Speech. His Remarks
upon the Clergy of Durham. Letter from Mr. Phillpotts
to his Lordjhip. The Peril of coming forward. The
Clergy defended againft the Imputation of Underhand Con
duct. The Treatment of Mr. Liddell at the Meeting.
Remarks on the Prefs. Improper Ufe of the exprejjion^
" The People" expofed. Difingenuous Arts of " Liberal"
Statefmen. Defer iption of Lord Grey's Conduct by Mr.
Phillpotts. His Behaviour in Parliament^ in reference to
the Queen's Guilt^ compared with his Statements at the
Durham Meeting. What his ConducJ ought to have been
had he believed in the Queen's perfeft Innocence. An In
judicious Statement in his Speech. Severe Remarks upon it
by Mr. Phillpotts. An unhappy Quotation of Holy Scrip
ture by his Lordjhip. Imprejflon created by the Letter of
Mr. Phillpotts. General Tone of it. Not to be judged by
the Standard of the Prefent Day. Confutation of Whig
Lawyers to afcertain if it was Libellous. Attack upon the
Clergy by the Durham Chronicle. Aftion for Libel againft
the Publijher. Mr. Brougham's Defence. Its Character.
Conviction of the Defendant.

JR. PHILLPOTTS had fcarcely entered
upon the enjoyment of his new benefice,
when the unexpected return of Queen
Caroline to England raifed a ftorm of ex
citement throughout the country, which foon involved

Return of ^ueen Caroline. 63

even the moft diftant towns and villages in its refift-
lefs courfe. It is, happily, no part of this hiftory to
chronicle the misfortunes or crimes of this ill-fated
princefs, or to dwell upon perfecutions which termi
nated not even with death, but purfued her lifelefs
body to the very confines of the land. It is neceflary,
however, to allude to thefe diftrefTmg events, fince
they gave occafion to a pamphlet by Mr. Phillpotts,
which created great fenfation at the time, and which
merits fomething more than a pafling notice.

The great perfonal unpopularity of the King, and
the unjuftifiable fyftem of efpionage which had been
fo fuccefsfully practifed upon the Queen, combined to
excite a fympathy in her favour, and to caufe peo
ple, if not actually to forget, at leaft to extenuate her
faults. The attempt of the Miniftry, therefore, to
proceed againft her Majefty by a Bill of Pains and
Penalties, which, if carried to its legitimate end, muft
have coft her her life, was about as unpopular and
inconfiderate a ftep as could poflibly have been taken.
In any event it muft terminate in failure. If the bill
mould pafs into law, the penalty was death, and no
Government would have dared to carry it out, in the
face of the popular excitement which prevailed. If it
was abandoned — as it ultimately was — the Queen's
triumph was complete. The effect of this was that
an almoft univerfal feeling of indignation was excited
againft the conduct of the Minifters. Thus, then,
while the Queen was the idol of the Londoners, and
was followed about everywhere by a fhouting and

64 Meetings held throughout the Kingdom.

triumphant mob, large and influential meetings were
held in all parts of the country, and Refolutions were
pafled condemnatory of the policy of the Government.
Nor were thefe meetings by any means confined to
the lower orders, and thofe agitators who find an op
portunity for making political capital out of the trou
bles of the times. Men of all ranks united in repro
bating the policy of a Government which could feek
to condemn a Royal lady to degradation without a
parallel, on evidence which would not have been re
ceived againft the moft abandoned criminal in the land.
The gentry of the county of Durham were not
backward in declaring their fentiments at this moft
critical and painful time. On Wednefday, December
the 1 2th, 1820, a meeting of the freeholders of the
county was held in the County Court, Durham, to
take into confideration the meafures that had been
purfued for the degradation of the Queen, and the
propriety of prefenting petitions to both Houfes of
Parliament, praying that they would take fuch fteps
as might effectually prevent the recurrence of pro
ceedings alike unconftitutional in their nature, and dif-
gufting and pernicious in their tendency. The High
Sheriff of the county, the Hon. W. K. Barrington,
took the chair ; and the numerous attendance of the
principal inhabitants of the county, as well as the rank
and character of thofe who took a prominent part in
the proceedings of the day, ftamped the meeting as,
probably, one of the moft important ever held in
Durham. John George Lambton, Efq., M.P., pro-

The 'Durham Meeting. 65

pofed, and Samuel Moulton Barnett, Efq., feconded,
certain Refblutions, which were embodied in an Addrefs
and prefented to the King. The other fpeakers were
Mr. Liddell (who exprefled his difapprobation at the
proceedings of the meeting), Earl Grey, Dr. Fen-
wick, Mr. Shafto, and Mr. Powlett, M.P.

Among the topics embraced in thefe Refblutions
there was one which was mifchievous and dangerous,
and was evidently inferted for party purpofes : — " We
humbly venture to ftate to your Majefty," the peti
tioners fay, " that a general fpirit of difcontent has
arifen, which, if not corrected by timely remedies,
muft produce the moft difaftrous confequences to the
power and tranquillity of this great empire." Now,
however true this may have been in fact, it had nothing
to do with the requifition, in purfuance of which the
meeting had been called. Its infertion, then, was
moft fignificant, and could only be regarded as an
intelligible hint to the King to change his advifers.
The unfairnefs of fuch a proceeding is manifeft. It
was, in point of fact, to ufe the Queen's misfortunes
for the purpofe of ejecting the Miniftry. Under thefe
circumftances fome of the clergy of Durham aflembled
at the Archdeacon's, and determined upon laying
before the King a Counter- Addrefs, declaring their own
fentiments, and pointing out what they conceived to
be the real dangers of the times. That they were
juftified in taking this ftep will be feen when it is
remembered that the Refolutions and Addrefs of the
Durham meeting went forth to the world under the

F

66 Hoftile Feeling again/I the Clergy.

name of the nobility, gentry, clergy 9 and freeholders
of the county. As long as the bufinefs of the meeting
was conduced in conformity with the terms of the
requifition, they would have had nothing to complain
of; and, even if they had not attended, they would
have been bound by the Refolutions which were agreed
upon : but when topics were introduced of which no
notice had been given, and of which they ftrongly
difapproved, no one can blame them for coming forward
and ftating the grounds of their difapproval. Mr.
Phillpotts took an aftive fhare in the preparation of
the Addrefs of the Clergy, and it fell to his lot to
propofe it to the meeting.

As foon as it became known that the Addrefs had
been prefented, a ftrong feeling of hoftility was mani-
fefted againfl the clergy. They were charged with
taking the part of Government againfl the Queen, for
mercenary motives, and were afTailed, both in public
and private, with epithets of hatred and fcorn. Upon
no one did the ftorm fall heavier than on Mr. Phill
potts. His conflitutional energy, and the great and
varied talents which he was able to bring to bear on
every queflion which he took in hand, fingled him out
as a favourite object of attack.

Nor were the rancorous feelings againfl the clergy
by any means confined to the lower orders. An earl
came forward to denounce them under the following
circumflances. At the clofe of December, 1820, a
requifition was prefented to the High Sheriff of
Northumberland, Wm. Clark, Efq., defiring that a

The Northumberland Meeting. 67

county meeting might be convened to take into con-
fideration the fteps propofed for the degradation of the
Queen. Among the fignatures appear the names of
Lords Tankerville, Grey, and Oflulfton, together with
fome of the leading gentry of the county. The high
meriff courteoufly but firmly refufed to call the meet
ing. In confequence of this refufal a circular was
fent round (Dec. 26), calling upon the independent
freeholders and inhabitants of the county to attend a
meeting to be held in the Town Hall at Morpeth on
Wednefday, January the loth, at twelve o'clock, to con-
fider the fteps neceflary to be taken in confequence of
the extraordinary conduct of the meriff, and for other
purpofes fpecified in the requifition. This was figned —

GREY,

JOHN E. SWINBURNE,

CHARLES MONCK,

T. W. BEAUMONT,

C. W. BIGGE,

JOHN GEORGE LAMBTON,

GEORGE BAKER.

Notwithftanding the exceeding inclemency of the
weather the meeting was moft numeroufly and refpect-
ably attended. It was feared that Lord Grey would
not be able to be prefent, as he had lately been fuffer-
ing from a fevere attack of illnefs. At twelve o'clock the
gates of the Hall were opened, and the preflure to
obtain admiiTion was exceflive. Even the noble earl
and the requifitionifts had very great difficulty in pro
curing their ufual feats upon the bench. The Hall

68 Letter to Lord Grey.

was denfely filled, and the heat very foon became
oppreflive.

Sir John Swinburne having been called to the chair,
the proceedings commenced. An Addrefs to the
King and fome Refolutions were agreed to, with only
one or two diflentient voices, the moft remarkable being
that of Mr. Orde, who came forward and boldly ftated
(though with much interruption) the reafons why he
could not concur in the proceedings of the meeting.
Upon this occafion Lord Grey was the chief fpeaker,
and his fpeech was long remembered as one of the
moft animated which he ever delivered. After touching
upon the bufinefs of the day, he proceeded to enlarge,
with great warmth and energy, upon the conduct of
the clergy of Durham in prefenting their Addrefs to
the King. This produced (Jan. 19) a letter from
Mr. Phillpotts to the noble Lord, " on certain charges
advanced by his Lordmip, at the late county meeting
in Northumberland, againft the clergy of the County
of Durham." He conceived that the fpeech of Lord
Grey was a challenge to the clergy, who had joined
in the Addrefs to the King, to avow before the world
the principles which dictated it, and the grounds on
which it was to be juftified. Mr. Phillpotts appears
not to have been infenfible to the perilous nature of
the enterprife in which he was engaging : —

" I am not ignorant," he fays, " that I may poffibly draw
upon myfelf all the fury of all your adherents, from the
political reviewer, who fcarcely any longer pretends to regard
truth and juftice as qualifications for his calling, down to

Defence of the Clergy. 69

the miferable mercenary, who eats the bread of proftitution,
and panders to the low appetites of thofe who cannot, or
who dare not, cater for their own malignity."

He then proceeds to examine that portion of Lord
Grey's fpeech which related efpecially to the clergy.
His lordfhip had imputed to them underhand con
duct, and faid that, inftead of flying into holes and
corners and fecret conclaves, they ought to meet thofe
from whom they differ face to face. Mr. Phillpotts
well remarks upon this : —

" I will not infult your Lordfhip by fuppofmg that you
made this demand for any other purpofe than to catch the
momentary plaudits of your audience. I only admire the
perfect gravity with which you make it, and talk of free dif-
cuflion at Durham county meetings as if you were really in
earneft. And yet, my Lord, well as you act the part, it is
one which by no means becomes you. This petty artifice
of daring an adverfary to combat, where you know he can
not meet you on equal terms, ought to be referved for thofe
whofe ambition can look no higher than to a fuccefsful dif-
play on the huftings. You, my Lord, were formed by nature
and by difcipline for far better things."

It is worthy of remark, that Mr. Liddell, a gentle
man of high family and character, actually did come
forward and addrefs the Durham meeting, with a view
of mowing the impropriety of its proceedings ; but
he was with the utmoft difficulty enabled to proceed
amidft a volley of hiffes, and cries of " fhame," and
"turn him out." Whether this ftate of things would
have been mended if a clergyman had happened to be
the fpeaker it is eafy enough to guefs.

jo Remarks on the Prefs.

Amongft other ftatements calculated to excite po
pular feeling againft the clergy, Lord Grey reprefented
them as attributing all the exifting difcontent to the
licentioufnefs of the prefs, and as being advocates for
encroachments on the liberties of the country. To this
Mr. Phillpotts replies : —

" My Lord, we have faid no more againft the licentiouf
nefs of the prefs than Mr. Brougham, and others of your
Lordfhip's political friends have often faid, and unhappily have
often proved in their place in Parliament. Inftead of attri
buting all to the licentioufnefs of the prefs, we expreflly at
tributed c much to the rafhnefs of headftrong declaimers,
heedlefs or ignorant of the tendency of their own folly' —
much to c the apathy of wifer and better men' — much to
c every evil principle', which can fhoot forth in rank luxuri
ance under the general fupinenefs of the good, and the reft-
lefs activity of the wicked. In fhort, the licentioufnefs of the
prefs is only one (a moft powerful and moft appalling one
indeed, but ftill only one) of feveral caufes to which we
afcribed, what we fee as plainly, and perhaps deplore as fin-
cerely, as your Lordfhip does, — a too prevailing fpirit of dif
content ; we might add, an impatience of all lawful control,
a thirft for untried, undefined, and undefinable change."

Mr. Phillpotts next defends the Addrefsof the Clergy
againft the aflertion of Lord Grey, that it contains
moft unjuft and unfounded charges againft Cf the peo
ple," a fomewhat ill-defined form of expreffion which
finds great favour with " liberal" ftatefmen on the huft-
ings, and at every crifis of their fate : —

" May I entreat your Lordfhip to produce the paflages
on which you found thefe aflertions ? Is k the following,
* Widely as the contagious frenzy has fpread, we cannot
doubt the foundnefs of the main body of this great nation.'

Manly Avowal of Mr. Phillpotts. 71

Who, my Lord, in your Lordfhip's contemplation, are the
people ? Not, it feems, c the main body of the nation* — but
fome portions of it — thofe particular portions which the Dur
ham clergy have made the fubjecl: of their accufation — in
other words, evil-minded men, who revile and mifreprefent
all the meafures of Government, and thofe who are feduced
by them to caft off their allegiance — the deluders and the de
luded — the vain difTeminators of mifchievous fooleries at
public meetings, and thofe whom fuch weak fophiftry can
miflead — the teachers and the difciples in the fchools of blaf-
phemy and fedition — the abettors and the accomplices in fecret
confpiracies and open rebellion — the Carliles and Woolers,
the Thiftlewoods and Brandreths — thefe are * the people'-
thefe are they of whom your Lordfhip proclaims yourfelf the
indignant advocate, thefe are they from whofe injured inno
cence you * repel the calumnies of us addreflers againft your
countrymen/ "

But the part of the Addrefs of the Clergy which gave
the greateft offence to Lord Grey, and which he feemed
to underftand as applying folely to himfelf, was that
which ftated, " We have feen, with feelings which we
forbear to exprefs, men of exalted rank and diftin-
guifhed talents, foftering and ftimulating the difcon-
tents of the multitude, availing themfelves of delufions
which they defpife, and of vices which they reprobate,
to forward the miferable objects of party ambition."
With the utmoft candour Mr. Phillpotts avows, that,
when he fubfcribed the addrefs, he did confider his
lordfhip to be one of thofe to whom the words were
juftly applicable ; and after this manly declaration, he
proceeds to juftify the opinion which he had formed.
This was founded chiefly on the difference obfervable

72 Lord Grey's Conduct

in Lord Grey's conduct and ftatements in relation to
the Queen's guilt, when fpeaking in Parliament, and
before the Durham county meeting. The majority who
attended that meeting were fully perfuaded of the
Queen's perfect innocence, and had affembled with the
intention of vindicating it.

" Now that you, my Lord," fays Mr. Phillpotts, " parti
cipated in that convi&ion, I venture to think impoflible. I do
fo, not from the apparent force of the evidence adduced,
(refpe&ing which it is no part of my purpofe to fay any
thing,) but from your Lordfhip's fpeech in the Houfe of Lords
on the motion for the fecond reading of the Bill of Degrada
tion. I there fee that in exprefs terms you admit and lament
that c impropriety of conduct,' that * matters of great fufpi-
cion' had been eftablifhed ; but * they did not amount to the
fair conclufion of guilt, which alone could juftify the verdict
of guilty;' that in the outfet your prejudices and feelings
were unfavourable to the Queen j that you did think it pof-
fible that a cafe would be made out, which would compel
you to vote for the bill ; but as it then flood, the only vote
you could reconcile to your honour and judgment was, with
a profound fenfe of duty, to lay your hand upon your heart
and fay, not guilty."

Mr. Phillpotts then goes on to mow what Lord
Grey's conduct would have been if he had really be
lieved that the Queen was innocent : —

" And while I form my conclufion from what you did
fay, I find it moft materially ftrengthened by what you did
not fay. You did not fay, my Lord, that you thought her
innocent. And yet, if you had indeed thought fo, your
feelings as a man muft have impelled you to give to her the
full benefit of your favourable opinion. You could not,
while you heard an oppofite judgment ftrongly exprefled by

in and out of Parliament. 73

many even of thofe who voted againft the bill, as well as by
the majority who fupported it — you could not have forborne
to declare yourfelf, in the broadeft and plaineft terms, in
favour of an unfortunate lady — that lady a Queen — that
Queen one whom, fourteen years before, when Minifter of
the Crown, you had felt it confident with your duty to
treat as, I am quite fure, your Lordfhip heartily wifhes fhe
never had been treated."

Having thus guarded his vote in the Houfe of
Lords in fuch a way as effectually to exclude him
from the number of thofe who believed in the Queen's
innocence, Lord Grey came before the meeting at
Durham, and liftened without remark to fpeakers
who affirmed that me was guiltlefs, joined in refolu-
tions which were founded on this fuppofition, and af-
ferted that c< the witnefles againft the Queen had been
proved to be totally unworthy of credit/' and that
" the evidence of the only witnefles brought forward
in fupport of the charge had been moft completely
overthrown by the teftimony of unimpeachable wit
nefles on the part of her Majefty."

Mr. Phillpotts thus fums up the cafe againft his
lordfhip : —

" My Lord, when I put thefe things together, and at the
fame time bear in mind the irrelevant matter fo unwarran
tably introduced into your proceedings — the vehement con
demnation of all the policy of his Majefty's Government,
both at home and abroad, and, laftly, the threat of a fpeedy
revolution if that policy is not changed — I have no difficulty
in ftating my reafons for confidering your Lordfhip as one of
thofe to whom the words of which you complain are juftly
applicable. In faying this, I add, with perfect fincerity, that

74 Injudicious Statement by Lord Grey.

I believe you to have deceived yourfelf — to have been influ
enced by views and a&uated by motives which you would
be the firft to renounce, if you thought them inconfiftent
with the welfare of your country."

A very injudicious fentence in Lord Grey's fpeech,
which was evidently intended as a fop to the extreme
Reformers of the day, gives Mr. Phillpotts an oppor
tunity, which he was not likely to mifs, of defcending
upon him with terrible force : —

" You fay that, c if the adminiftration of affairs were of
fered to you to-morrow, you would not accept it, without
being enabled to effe6t a complete change in the prefent
fyftem of government.' This, my Lord, is fpeaking plainly.
In truth, an ardent and impetuous politician, like your Lord-
fhip, who has been for nearly forty years engaged in vehe
ment oppofition, can hardly fail to have difqualified himfelf
for office. In the courfe of his long and unfparing hoftility
to almoft every meafure of Minifters, it is fcarcely to be
hoped that he mould not have committed himfelf by pledges
which he cannot, when in power, abandon without difho-
nour, nor redeem without ruin to his country. Your Lord-
fhip has once been tried, for a very fhort period, as a
Minifter ;* and, whether juftly or otherwife, many of your
old fupporters charged you then with incurring the former
part of this alternative : if the trial be repeated, we may all
have occafion to deplore that you now prefer the latter."

But Lord Grey, having " exhaufted," as Mr. Phill
potts fays, " the copious ftores of his own eloquence

* On the acceffion to office of the Fox and Grenville
Miniftry, in 1806, Lord Grey was appointed Firft Lord of
the Admiralty, with a feat in the Cabinet. On the death of
Fox he fucceeded to the vacant poft of Secretary for Foreign
Affairs 5 but the Miniftry was fhortly afterwards diflblved.

His Quotation from Scripture. 75

in railing at the clergy/' has recourfe to a quotation
from holy Scripture to juftify his arguments, and give
point to his farcafm. He defcribes the clergy who
flgned the Addrefs in the words of David — " Their
communing is not for peace, but they imagine deceit
ful words againft thofe that are quiet in the land."
After a well-deferved rebuke for this trifling with
facred words, Mr. Phillpotts exclaims: —

" Quiet in the land ! Why, your Lordfliip and your friends
are now the prime agitators in thefe northern parts. Be the
fpirit of modern Whiggifm what it may — a fpirit of health,
or one of a very different defcription — be its intents wicked
or charitable — if it is in any degree an honeft fpirit, it will
at leaft not alk us to call it a quiet one. A revolution muft
have already begun, and have begun in the underftanding
and reafon of Englifhmen, before we can bring ourfelves to
acknowledge the peaceful politics of Mr. Lambton, or the
dove-like demeanour of Earl Grey."

It has been faid already that this letter created a
profound impreflion, and it deferved to do fo. Mr.
Phillpotts had matched himfelf againft one of the
acuteft intellects in the land, the impetuous eloquence
of whofe oratory had earned for him the title of the
Hotfpur of his party, and had fucceeded in fhowing
that he could command powers of logic and fatire
which it would not be well for an adverfary, however
gifted, lightly to provoke. His pamphlet was ftrictly
defenfive, and, although written under no ordinary
provocation, was not remarkable for any needlefs af-
perity either of fentiment or of language. But ftill it
is a queftion whether it would not have been wifer, as

7 6 Attack upon the Clergy

afluredly it would have been more praifeworthy, for
a clergyman to withdraw himfelf altogether from the
arena of party ftrife, and refrain from writing a letter
which could fcarcely be viewed otherwife than as a
political expedient. The temptation, no doubt, was
ftrong. Party fpirit was running high. The fpeech
of Lord Grey was fingularly irritating, and, if un-
anfwered, was likely to do all the mifchief that his
great and honoured name enabled it to do. The
Durham dignitaries, too, had all along exhibited an
unhappy propenfity to meddle with politics. Mr.
Phillpotts, therefore, muft be judged with due regard
to the circumftances of the times and the habits of thofe
with whom he was afTociated. The memory of his
pamphlet did not foon pafs away ; and if it fhielded
the clergy from the unmerited attack of Lord Grey,
it alfo expofed them to the hatred of adverfaries. This
hoftility was not long in bearing fruit, for foon after
its publication a confultation of eminent Whig lawyers
was held, at the exprefs inftance of fome of the
moft zealous aflertors of the freedom of the prefs,
for the purpofe of detecting fomething libellous in it,
but the attempt was abandoned.

But matters did not reft here, for on Auguft the 1 8th,
1821, an article appeared in the Durham Chronicle,
charging the clergy, and efpecially thofe of the cathe
dral, with cc brutal enmity " to the Queen, becaufe
they had not caufed the bells to be tolled at her death,
and aflerting that they clung to temporal power, and
loft, in their officioufnefs in political matters, even the

by the Durham Chronicle. 77

femblance of the character of minifters of religion.
This led to an action for libel againft the publifher of
the paper, John Ambrofe Williams, who was tried at
Durham, Auguft the 6th, 1822, before Mr. Baron
Wood and a fpecial jury. Mr. Brougham was retained
for the defence, and made a fpeech the vehemence of
which may well caufe one to marvel at the latitude
accorded to popular orators in troublous times. Mr.
Phillpotts himfelf thus defcribes* it: —

" Though delivered in fupport of a defence, it contains
nothing at all apologetical, and not much that can be repre-
fented as even conciliatory. It is criminative, contemptuous,
and defying. The tone throughout is that of proud fuperi-
ority and command, and its general ftrain and character may
be compendioufly defcribed by the fmgle word terrible."

It was, however, without avail, for Williams was
found guilty of a libel on the clergy of the cathedral
at Durham. Dr. Phillpotts (for he had now taken
his doctor's degree) evinced great intereft in the trial,
and was prefent during the whole time it lafted. He
was not, indeed, as was commonly fuppofed, one of
the promoters of the fuit, for Mr. Scarlett, the
counfel for the profecution, diftinctly aflerted that
the Bifhop of the diocefe was the profecutor. In
truth the libelled clergy knew nothing of the profe
cution till they were informed of it through the
public prints.

Though the defendant expreffed himfelf againft

* " Letter to Francis Jeffrey, Efq."

78 Conviction of the Publijher.

the clergy more coarfely than Lord Grey had done,
yet the object of both was the fame — to bring them
into contempt. Thus, then, the verdict of a jury
completed what the letter of Mr. Phillpotts had
begun.

79

CHAPTER VII.

Further Attacks upon the Clergy of Durham. Peculiarly ob
noxious to the Enemies of the Church. Article in the Edin
burgh Review. Dr. Phillpotts Jingled out by Name. De-
fcription of the Article. Reafons for a Reply. Letter by
Dr. Phillpotts to Francis Jeffrey, Efq., the reputed Editor.
His Defence of the Doftrine of the Real Prefence. Expo-
fure of the hiftorical Inaccuracy of the Reviewer. Improper
ufe by him of the Cafe of Williams. Reference to Williams
in a former Letter to Lord Grey denied by Dr. Phillpotts.
Extreme Forbearance which he had Jhown towards him. Re
futation of the Charge of not having caufed the Bells to be
tolled at the Queen's Death. The dijingenuous Way in which
the Reviewer performed his Ta(k. The Defendant's Libel
compared with the Defcription given of it by the Reviewer.
Remarks on the Way in which the Edinburgh Review was
conducted. Mr. Jeffrey's Reply. Nothing faid which affefts
the Merits of the Cafe. A flinging Reproof by Dr. Phill
potts. Offer of an Irijh Bijhopric by Lord Liverpool de
clined. His Promife to the Bijhop of Durham.

|UT the troubles of the Durham clergy
were not deftined fo eafily to ceafe. The
ifliie of the trial of Williams only ftimu-
lated their enemies to further adls of ag-
greflion. Dr. Phillpotts defcribes himfelf and his
brethren* as c< a body which feems to have earned in
a peculiar degree the hoftility of every enemy to our
Eftablimment." And this was true enough. They
were decidedly unpopular. The Edinburgh Review

* "Letter to Francis Jeffrey, Efq."

80 Article in Edinburgh Review.

in particular had marked them out for vengeance,
and in November, 1822, an article appeared headed,
" Durham Cafe— Clerical Abufes." Dr. Phillpotts
was the only one of the clergy mentioned by name,
and it is eafy enough to fee why this mark of diftinc-
tion mould have been accorded to him. The article
is defcribed by him as evidently written cc by fome
inferior hand, who, without the flighteft pretenfion to
the ftrength of the ferpent, can only exhibit the flime
and the venom." This is a fingularly happy defcrip-
tion ; applicable, unfortunately for the credit of
journalifm, to other articles befldes that in the Edin
burgh Re-view. After this ftatement it is almoft a
pity that he mould have attempted any reply. There
can be no pleafure in hunting down a loathfome
reptile through marTes of filth. When you have
caught it you can do nothing with it. It feemed,
however, to Dr. Phillpotts that the extenfive circula
tion of the Review, and the inferences already drawn
from the filence of the clergy, under charges moft un-
ceafingly brought againft them, demanded that fome
notice fhould be taken of the attack. If any notice
was to be taken, moft people would agree that he
was the man to take it. His anfwer afTumed the
form of a letter to the Editor of the Edinburgh Re
view, dated the 3oth of December, 1822.*

* " A Letter to Francis Jeffrey, Efq., the reputed Editor
of the Edinburgh Review^ on an Article entitled, ' Durham
Cafe— Clerical Abufes,' by the Rev. H. Phillpotts, D.D.,
Re&or of Stanhope."

Hiftorical Inaccuracy of Reviewer. 8 1

The reviewer had thought it needful to enter largely
into what he took for theology. His blunders, how
ever, are not to be regretted, as they afforded to Dr.
Phillpotts an opportunity of exprefling himfelf on the
dodtrine of the Real Prefence, which he declares to
be <c diftinctly and unequivocally affirmed " in the
Thirty-nine Articles. This is a valuable teftimony,
and none the lefs fo from occurring in a place where
one would fo little expect to find it.

To mow that the hiftorical knowledge of the
reviewer was about on a level with his theological
attainments, the following remarks of Dr. Phillpotts
will fuffice : —

" Can a writer expect to be anfwered who will ferioufly
quote Bifhop Burnet for a recommendation and authority
to the Epifcopal bench of our days to live c abftracted from
courts, from cabals, and from parties ?' — fcenes in which
that good bifhop bore a bufier part than the moft fecular of
our prelates for a century paft, and where by his zealous
fupport of Whig principles he raifed himfelf to that eminent
ftation, which, together with his numerous virtues, would
enfure him, if now living, a full (hare in the invectives of
his prefent panegyrift."

The miferable equipment, however, of his aflailant
does not, in the Doctor's judgment, prohibit a reply ;
and he proceeds to expofe " the meaneft artifice, and
the moft daring falfehoods," which " are reforted to
without fcruple or reftraint," in the courfe of the
review. After dealing with the attack on modern
bifhops, which had been made by the reviewer, with
fpecial reference to a recent fpeech by the Bifhop of

82 Dr. Phillpotts and the

London, on the fubjed of the Queen's degradation,
Dr. Phillpotts goes on to ftate that the proceeding of
Williams, in publishing an account of his trial for libel,
has afforded " to the congenial fpirit of this reviewer
an opportunity of reviling the clergy and the Church
of England, of which he has not failed to avail himfelf
to the utmoft."

" Decency," he adds, " and juftice might have feemed to
require that he fhould at leaft wait till the proceedings have
been completed ; but decency and juftice are antiquated
reftri&ions, which a modern reformer has long fmce learned
to defpife. Befides, if he did not fend forth his ftriclures
without delay, it might chance that the aflertions, on which
they were to be built, might lofe even the faint femblance
of probability which it was convenient to throw around
them."

A ftatement in the letter of Dr. Phillpotts to Lord
Grey, in reference to cc the miferable mercenary who
eats the bread of prostitution, and panders to the low
appetites of thofe who cannot, or who dare not, cater
for their own malignity,"* caufes the Edinburgh
Review to faften this fomewhat ungraceful defcription
on Williams, the defendant in the action for libel.
Dr. Phillpotts denies the allufion, and humoroufly
fays : —

" After this we may find no difficulty in believing that
the ingenious perfon who converted * The Whole Duty of
Man ' into a feries of libels, by labelling each vice with the
name of the fquire, the churchwarden, and fo forth, was no
other than an Edinburgh reviewer."

* See page 69.

Publifher of the Durham Chronicle. 83

The defcription evidently does not appear to have
been as flattering to Williams as it was ufeful to the
purpofes of the reviewer, for in his affidavit before the
King's Bench, in January 1822, he declared that he
did not know who was intended by it.

" By what means," fays Dr. Phillpotts, " he afterwards
improved fo wonderfully in the moft important of all fciences
— the knowledge of himfelf — or how he managed to c fcrew
his courage to the fwearing point,' I fhall not trouble myfelf
to inquire."

And a little further on he adds :

In truth he was not idiot enough to fit the cap to his
own head, till he fancied he could ferve a defperate caufe by
wearing it."

So far from having aflailed Williams, Dr. Phillpotts
had carried forbearance to a point that muft have
been very trying to him. Week after week, and
month after month, had Williams been dealing out
the coarfeft and fouleft abufe of him in the columns
of the Durham Chronicle , and it would not have been
difficult to find pafTages that might have given rife to
criminal proceedings. So far as it appears, Dr. Phill
potts did not retaliate, at all events in public, and
with the exception of the fingle fentence in the letter
to Lord Grey, which the reviewer claimed as defcrib-
ing Williams, nothing can be produced to fhow that
he felt any irritation, or indeed was confcious of the
attacks of the prefs.

Dr. Phillpotts next proceeds to that portion of the

84 Dijingenuoufnefs of Strictures

review which relates to the conduct of the Durham
clergy, in not caufing the bells to be tolled on the
death of Queen Caroline. " To that body," he fays,
cc I did not belong : over the bells of any church in
Durham I had no more control than the defendant or
his reviewer." A little further on he declares that all
the reviewer's clamour againft the Durham clergy, for
taking a prominent and violent part on the queftion
of the Queen's guilt, is as wholly devoid of truth as
his other afTertions concerning them.

" They a&ually forbore," he fays, " taking any part
at all, till having been included in the defcription of a
county meeting,* which threatened the Sovereign with a
revolution, in confequence partly of the proceedings againft
her Majefty, but chiefly of other alleged grievances, they
exercifed that right which none but thofe c who,' in the
cant of the reviewer, * efpoufe liberal principles/ would
deny them, and difclaimed all fhare in the a&s of that meet
ing. But even in doing this, fo little ground did they give
for the charge of violence, in their language refpe&ing the
Queen, that, as far as the proceedings of the county meeting
related to her Majefty, they confidered it fufficient fimply to
declare their diflent."

Speaking of the difingenuous way in which the re
viewer had performed his duty, Dr. Phillpotts fays : —

" I will not purfue the difgufting tafk of tracing all the
frauds and artifices of this perfon, whoever he be, who has
thruft himfelf into the feat of juftice, and, in conjunction
with his brother reviewers, profefles to decide equally and
impartially on all kinds of merit and demerit, literary, poli
tical, and moral."

* See page 66.

in the Edinburgh Review. 85

He then exhibits the defendant's libel, and the
defcription of it as given in the review, fhowing that,
to anfwer the reviewer's purpofes, it is ftripped of
every {ingle expreflion which marks its libellous
character. Not one line of the libel occurs in a long
article which occupies nine-and-twenty pages of clofely-
printed matter. "What honeft motive," afks Dr.
Phillpotts, " can be afligned for fuch a fuppreflion ?
Why is he thus anxious to hide from his readers the
extent of the defendant's crime ?"

The letter concludes with fome withering remarks
on the manner in which the Edinburgh Review was
conduced. Not even the character of Jeffrey could
be proof againft fuch charges as Dr. Phillpotts heaps
upon him. They deferve to be known, not indeed
for the purpofe of reflecting upon the memory of one
who is no longer able to anfwer for himfelf, and who
for once forgot his high fenfe of honour in dealing thus
with a clergyman of diftinguifhed pofition, but to fhow
that whatever bitternefs may appear in portions of this
letter, and in other places where this topic is referred
to, was juftified (if ever there can be j unification for
afperity of language) by a feries of affronts and invec
tives, unworthy alike of the Edinburgh Review and
of the diftinguifhed critic who conducted it.

" If by inadvertence," fays Dr. Phillpotts, " anything
falfe, unjuft, or culpably offenfive to the feelings of an indi
vidual, fhould for once have crept into his Journal, at leaft
he would be anxious to prevent all recurrence of the injury.
Has fuch been the condu& of the editor of this review ? An

86 Remarks on Conduct of Edinburgh Review.

article was publifhed in his fixty-fourth number,* refle&ing in
the coarfeft terms on my chara&er. I anfwered that article
by proving the wilful falfehood of its main allegations, and at
the fame time called on the author to defend his own veracity.
Under that challenge he fat down in filence. He feized in
deed (or fome one for him) on fome fubordinate particular,
and with much confidence of manner, and frefh fcurrility of
language, triumphed over my fuppofed mifapprehenfion of a
point of law. Here too he was defeated ; his ignorance of
the law was expofed, as his lefs venial practices had been
detected before. Having done this, I addrefled the Editor of
the Review in terms of forbearance, perhaps I might fay of
courtefy, on the juft grounds of complaint which I might
urge againft himfelf. After an interval of three years, being
again aflailed in the fame Journal, with equal groflhefs, and
as I have proved, with equal falfehood, I now tell the editor
before the world, that on him will light all the ignominy of
this fecond outrage j I tell him too that he would rather
have forgone half the profits of his unhallowed trade, than
have dared to launch againft any one of his brethren of the
Gown, the fmalleft part of that fcurrility, which he has felt
no fcruple in circulating againft Churchmen. To you, Sir, I
make no apology for addreffing you on this occafion. If
you are not, what the public voice proclaims you to be, the
Editor of the Review, you will thank me for thus giving
you an opportunity publicly to difclaim the degrading title.
If you are, it is henceforth to me a matter of indifference
what fuch a perfon may think or fay."

That Mr. Jeffrey fhould give utterance to fome
wails of pain under fuch a mercilefs caftigation as this

* This article appeared in the number for October, 1819,
and was entitled, " The Neceflity of Parliamentary Enquiry."
It related to the degradation of Queen Caroline.

Mr. Jeffrey s Reply. 87

was nothing more than might have been expected.
Accordingly, in the next number of the Edinburgh
Review (February, 1823) there appeared an editorial
" note on Dr. Phillpotts/' extending over upwards of
four pages. Denying any merit to his pamphlet, the
writer alleges its excefs of violence and fcurrility as
its only claim to diftinction.

As an example of the meeknefs with which he in
tends to fchool Dr. Phillpotts into better behaviour
for the future, he begins by ftating that every one of
the charges brought by him againft the reviewer is
utterly unfounded, and that his errors are to be afcribed
to the violent pajfion in which he evidently writes.
After this conciliatory preface, he proceeds to examine
certain ftatements in the letter to Jeffrey in a tone
which renders it impoffible to follow him, and which
plainly proves that the wounds inflicted by the lafh of
Dr. Phillpotts were ftill green and aching. No
thing, however, is faid which in the leaft affects the
merits of the cafe, and the concluding fentences, in
which all the previous charges againft Dr. Phillpotts
are reiterated and endorfed by the editor, can only
have the effect of making every one regret that the
manager of fo diftinguifhed a Review mould have been
wanting in the courtefy to confefs that he was wrong,
and refufe to an injured clergyman the only reparation
which it was in his power to give.

That Dr. Phillpotts mould have again adverted to
the conduct of Mr. Jeffrey is not to be wondered at.
The only marvel is that any (kin, even if it were as

88 Dr. Phillpotts admimfters

tough as the fevenfold fhield of Ajax, fhould be able
to endure a caftigation fo mercilefs.

The terrible denunciation which follows muft have
had its effect upon that motley brood of literary
vipers, one characteristic of whom has ever been —

" The tongue that licks the duft,
But, w ben it fafely dares , is prompt to fling \ "

and it is no wonder that Scotch theologians and critics
fhould henceforward have done their beft to keep them-
felves out of reach of the Doctor's arm.

" The editor's own feelings on this occafion," he fays,
" may perhaps give him fome lafting touches of remorfe for
more than twenty long and guilty years of wanton or wilful
difregard of the feelings of others. Let him, in his prefent
mood, look on the catalogue of honourable and diftinguifhed
names, which he and his confederates have laboured to
make the fport or the victims of their fpleen, their arrogance,
or their party fury. Let him reflect on the meannefs, as
well as the injuftice, of abufmg the power, which the exten-
five circulation of his Journal gave him, to * blazon thofe
names ' in every quarter to which Englifh literature could
reach, cin connection with epithets' fcarcely lefs painful
(except that they were, for the moft part, unmerited), than
thofe, under which he now writhes, with the bitter con-
fcioufnefs that they are deferved. Let him remember, that,
during fo long a period, he has by himfelf, or his minions,
pandered to all the envious and malignant feelings of his
readers — ufed every engine of literary torture that could
wound and lacerate ingenuous minds — left uneflayed no
fmgle gradation of cruelty, from ruffian violence down to
the fubtler and fafer expedients of mock candour and con
temptuous commendation — to eftablifh a defpotifm of the
pen, which, like other defpotifms, has ended in deftroying

a Stinging Reproof . 89

itfelf. Let him read in the indignation, or the pity, of every
impartial mind, his own large fhare in the common ignominy
which has long been thickening round his band — and then,
let him, if he will, affect to hide his fhame under the
babyifh plea, that he did not load the piece, he only primed
it and drew the trigger — that he has, in fhort, only hired
himfelf out to a bookfeller, for fome ftated hundreds of
miferable pelf, to be the midwife and the nurfe to every un
fathered brood of calumnies which the malice of his faction
fhall engender. If he will, let him talk thus, and perfift to
defend what he knows is indefenfible. But, rather, let him
feek, in this, his day of deep humiliation, the real benefit
which he ought to draw from it. Let him meditate on the
painful contraft of what he is, with what he might have been
— and what he yet may be. And then let him caft off at
once the vile flough with which he is encumbered — again
ftand forth in fome ingenuous form, and vindicate anew his
title to that high refpect, of which no man but himfelf could
rob him. Let him do this, and he will yet have reafon to
rejoice that in one, whom he had doomed for his victim, he
has found a monitor and a friend."

This mafterly description of the effects of perverted
journalifm may be commended to the confideration of
one, at leaft, of our modern Reviews, which, in its
reftlefs eagernefs to provoke a laugh, miftakes invec
tive for wit, and is willing to purchafe a reputation
for clevernefs at any price demanded by an infatiate
public.

But, if Dr. Phillpotts had reafon to complain of the
malignity of his enemies, he was alfo rapidly making
friends for himfelf in high places. The vigour of his
writings, the fubtlety of his wit, and the force and
deciiion of his character, pointed him out as a valu-

90 Q/er of an Irijh Riflwpric.

able ally to any Government. It was about this
time, therefore, that overtures were made to him by
Lord Liverpool, who was defirous of raifing him to
the Irifh Epifcopal Bench. The See of Clogher, then
vacant by the deprivation of the Hon. Percy Jocelyn,
with its princely income of I4,ooo/. a-year, would
have been a tempting offer to moft men ; but, with
greater fagacity, Dr. Phillpotts declined the honour,
rightly enough concluding that his talents and reputa
tion would foon open the way to equal or greater
dignities in England. That he himfelf expected that
this would be the not unnatural termination of his
labours, is evidenced by his having made a promife to
the Bifhop of Durham (Dr. Barrington), on his pre-
fentation by him to the Rectory of Stanhope, that he
would not accept a bifhopric during his lordfhip's life
time without his confent, nor after his death, unlefs
it fhould feem to him that, if that prelate were alive,
he would approve of his acceptance of it.

91

CHAPTER VIII.

Mr. Charles Butler's Book. The Anfwer of Dr. Phillpotts.
Motives for undertaking it. Odium inevitable to it. No
Defer e to fee the Rejlrictions of Roman Catholic strengthened.
The Difficulty and Unpopularity of the Tajk. The Courage
of Dr. Phillpotts. Value of his Letters to Mr. Butler.
Devotion to the Virgin Mary and other Saints. Roman
Catholic Explanations of the Way In which they receive the
Prayers of Men. Their Futility. Doubtful Character of
certain Roman Saints. An Example. Image-worjhip. S.
Thomas Aquinas contrajled with the Second Council of Nice.
Awkward Dilemma. Specious Attempts of Roman Catholic
Writers to difguife the Doctrine of Image-w orjhip Jhown (i)
from the Theory of their Church ^ and (2) from its Practice.
Examples. Summing-up of the ^uejlion. Dr. Lingard's
Unfaithfulnefs in Quotation. Attempts of Roman Catholic
Writers to foften down the Doctrine of Purgatory. Dr.
Milner** Definition of it. A True Statement of It. Autho
rity attributed by Bellarmine to Vifions in fupport of Purga
tory. Summarily difpofed of by Dr. Phillpotts. S. Augufline
Improperly claimed in favour of Purgatory. Means of re
lieving thofe who are confined there. Effect of the Doctrine
of Vicarious Satisfaction. Declarations of the Bible and the
Church of Rome contrajled. Indulgences. The Ground on
which the Doctrine refts. The Practice of the Roman
Church. Confejjion and Abfolution. A Clergyman compelled
to give Evidence of a Confejjion in a Court of 'Juftice. Im
propriety of this Jhown by Dr. Phillpotts. S. Augufline and
Pelagius. Dr. Phillpotts9 Statement of Doctrine of Real
Prefence. Defective^ as ignoring the Objective Prefence.
Archbijhop Wake defended againfl Imputation of favouring
Roman Doctrines. The Affertion that Bijhop Hoadley had
many Followers among the Clergy refuted. The Power of
the Pope examined. Examples of its Exercife. The Treat
ment of Heretics, llluflration of the Doctrine that Oaths are

92 Mr. Charles Butler's Book

not to be kept with them. The Spirit of^ the Papacy un
changed^ as proved by the Recall of the Jefuits and the Revi
val of the Inquifetion. Char after of Dr. Phillpotts' Letters
to Mr. Butler.

IRE year 1825 was remarkable in the life
of Dr. Phillpotts for witnefling the pro-
J: dudtion of the moft important literary
work upon which he had yet engaged.
Mr. Charles Butler, a Roman Catholic layman, and
member of Lincoln's Inn, diftingui fried no lefs for his
amiable qualities than his undoubted talent as a con-
troverfial writer, had publifhed a learned and labo
rious work, entitled, The Book of the Roman Catholic
Church. It was in anfwer to this, or rather to the
tenth Letter of it, entitled, View of the Roman Ca
tholic Syftem, that Dr. Phillpotts came forward to
correct what feemed to him to be a very erroneous
ftatement, in fome refpects, of the doctrines of his own
Church, but in a much greater degree of thofe of the
Church of Rome. It was a congenial tafk, and the
refult of his labours was the production (April, 1825)
of fifteen Letters addrefTed to Mr. Butler,* and dedi
cated, together with an Appendix, to his old friend
and patron, Dr. Barrington, Bimop of Durham.

* " Letters to Charles Butler, Efq., on the Theological
Parts of his c Book of the Roman Catholic Church,' with
Remarks on certain Works of Dr. Milner and Dr. Lingard,
and on fome Parts of the Evidence of Dr. Doyle before the
two Committees of the Houfes of Parliament, by the Rev.
Henry Phillpotts, D.D., Reftor of Stanhope."

and Dr. Phillpotts' Anfwer. 93

In undertaking the tafk Dr. Phillpotts does not
feek to difguife the probability that he will be charged
with reviving paft differences. But, whatever the ef
fect of fuch a charge may be, with perfect manlinefs
he avows: —

" It furely cannot be neceflary for a clergyman of the
Church of England to apologife, at any time, for bringing
forward the real grounds on which his Church found itfelf
compelled to feparate from the Church of Rome."

Such a diffidence, in truth, would argue, not fo much
tendernefs towards the principles of an adverfary, as a
cowardly furrender of one's own. He is confcious,
alfo, that the appearance of his work, at a time when
men's minds were agitated as to the propriety of re
moving the remaining political reflections under which
the Roman Catholics laboured, would be conftrued
into the wifh of feeing thofe reflections ftrengthened
and perpetuated.

" I think it proper to declare," he fays, " that fuch is
very far from being the motive of my prefent undertaking.
If the time of this publication may feem to argue the con
trary, let me remind you that this time is not of my choof-
ing, but of yours. At any period, and under any circum-
ftances, I mould have judged it right to expofe fo important
a mif-ftatement as I confider yours to be : and I am not
prevented from fo doing by an apprehenfion that I may be
thought defirous of fupporting one fide of a great political
queftion by the indirect influence of a theological argu
ment."

Surely this frank and manly avowal mould have
fhielded Dr. Phillpotts from thofe cruel attacks which
were afterwards made upon the purity of his motives

94 Dr. Phillpotts* Courage and Ability.

and the conflftency of his principles. He had taken
upon himfelf a difficult and a thanklefs tafk. The
great reputation of Mr. Butler, fupported by Dr.
Milner's End of Controverfy, could not fail to have
worked irreparable mifchief, if his ftatements had
remained uncontradidted. It was, indeed, an unpopular
undertaking to contradict them, for the utmoft (kill
and ingenuity of the advocates of Roman Catholic relief
had been exhaufted in endeavouring to make it appear
that the creeds of the Englifh and Roman Churches
were as fimilar as poffible. So great was the " liberal-
ifm" of the day that points of difference were rapidly
vaniming, and plain men began to wonder why there
had been fuch a turmoil about the Reformation.
But thanklefs as was the office of awakening the
nation from the eafy flumber of indifferentifm into
which it had fallen, lulled by the moft foothing tones
of its chofen orators, yet Dr. Phillpotts fhrank not
from it. God had given to him the learning and
ability to overthrow the fophiftry of adverfaries, and
right manfully did he do his work. This confidera-
tion alone fhould have fhielded him from railing
tongues.

Want of fpace will render it impoflible to go through
thefe mafterly letters in detail, more particularly as
portions of them will be touched upon in connection
with Dr. Phillpotts' letters to Mr. Canning. The
utmoft, therefore, that can be attempted will be to
direct: attention to fome of the moft interesting fubjects
referred to in them. And this is done with the pro-

The Value of his Labours. 95

founderl: reverence for the learning, {kill, and temper
difplayed throughout the whole. As long as any
controverfy fhall exift between the Churches of England
and Rome, fo long, it may fafely be affirmed, will
thefe letters remain a ftorehoufe of knowledge for
every ftudent of theology.

In the fecond Letter, which is occupied with a con-
fideration of the " Devotion to the Virgin Mary and
other Saints," Dr. Phillpotts takes occafion to examine
what is meant by, the veneratio and invocatio which
the Roman Church enjoins to be paid to them. After
mowing that the Council of Trent affigns to them one
of the diftinguifhing attributes of God — a knowledge
of what paries in the hearts of men, inafmuch as
mental 'prayer is included in the devotion to be paid
to them, and that another attribute afcribed to them
is prefence throughout the habitable globe at the fame
time, as a neceflary confequence of the duty of praying
to them, he continues : —

" I am aware, indeed, that fome ingenious expedients have
been fuggefted [to avoid the confequence arifing from the
above pofitions]. For inftance, that God is pleafed by
immediate revelation to inform the Virgin, and the faints,
of every fupplication addrefled to them ; and this feems to
be the folution favoured by Dr. Milner. But, as you tell
us that prayers are offered to the faints, only that they may
offer prayers to God on our behalf, it follows, that God firft
reveals to them what we entreat them to pray to Him for
us, — a procefs which is not very fatisfa&ory to men of plain
underftanding. It is told of a great man who had the mif-
fortune of writing very illegibly, that he was in the habit of

96 Saint-worfbip of Roman Church.

accompanying every letter written by his own hand with a
tranfcript of it by his fecretary, in order that he might at
the fame time teftify his refpeft, and confult for the conve
nience of his correfpondent. Now this, which is the very
reverfe of the fuppofed mode of availing ourfelves of the
affiftance of the faints in our prayers, feems to be much the
more rational courfe of the two.

" But another folution of the difficulty has been devifed :
— that the faints have their information, not from God, but
from the angels. This, however, I fear, removes the diffi
culty but a fingle ftep. For whence have the angels a know
ledge of our prayers ? What fupports the tortoife ?
Accordingly, a third plan has been thought of : — that
the faints fee in the mirror of the Deity all that it is
His pleafure they fhould fee, and, among other things,
the prayers of their fupplicants. A fourth mode of ex
plaining the matter is, the fuppofition of an inconceivable
celerity in the locomotion of angels and faints — a celerity
which, if it be fufficient for its purpofe, is fo near akin to
ubiquity, that it leaves us where it found us."

A little further on Dr. Phillpotts fuggefts another
and a ferious difficulty relating to the amount of honour
to be paid to the faints :—

"As you are in the habit ofaddreffing a good many faints,
the merits of very few of whom are mentioned in Scripture,
a plain man might afk, What aflurance you have that they
really are faints ? Is it not poffible that very awkward mif-
takes may occafionally happen ? That you may, for inftance,
addrefs your petitions to perfons of very different characters,
and occupying a very different place in the world of fpirits,
to that which you fuppofe ?"

The anfwer to this is the folemn canonization of
deceafed perfons under the efpecial cognizance of the
Pope ; and Dr. Phillpotts mentions the cafe of Pope

S. Thomas Aquinas and Image-worjhip . 97

Alexander III, who had occafion to reprehend certain
perfons for wormipping, as a martyr to the caufe of
true religion, a man who was in truth only a martyr
to the ftrength of his wine, having been killed in a
ftate of drunkennefs.

In the third Letter Dr. Phillpotts expofes the dif-
honefty of Roman Catholic writers on the fubject of
" Image-worfhip." As a proof of this he fets the
authority of S. Thomas Aquinas againft that of the
Second Council of Nice. The former maintained
that the image of Chrift receives no reverence, as it is
a piece of wood, or other fubftance, but is reverenced
as reprefenting a rational being, and that therefore the
reverence paid to the image of Chrifl muft be the fame
as that which is paid to Chrift Himfelf. The Second
Council of Nice,* on the other hand, decreed that,
like the image of the precious and life-giving Crofs,
the venerable and holy images be fet up, fo that they
who behold them may pay them " falutation and
refpectful honour ; not indeed that true worfhip which
is according to our faith, which only befits the Divine
Nature," &c. Dr. Phillpotts thus remarks upon the
difcrepancy : —

" S. Thomas's dodtrine (though in accordance with that
of S. Bonaventure, Cardinal Cajetan, and others) was in
diredt oppofition to a much higher authority than any of
them — I mean the Second Council of Nice j the fcandal
whereof is fo great that Bellarmine is driven to conje&ure

* AfTembled, in 787, by the Emprefs Irene, to reverfe the
decrees of Conftantinople, and eftablim image-worfhip.

H

98 Attempts of Roman Catholic Writers

that S. Thomas had never feen the Acts of that Council — a
fuppofition which is rather awkward, confidering that one of
the characteriftics of a General Council is, that ' their
found is gone out into all lands, and their word unto the
ends of the world ;' and yet the greateft of fchoolmen, it
feems, five hundred years after the Council had fat, was an
utter ftranger to its proceedings ! But awkward as this
fuppofition is, it is neverthelefs abfolutely neceflary ; other-
wife a ftill more awkward alternative prefents itfelf. For
either the Second Nicene Council, approved by Pope Hadrian,
accepted by the whole Church, and declared to be a General
Council by the infpired aflembly at Trent, was no General
Council, and fo the infallible Church hath erred ; or elfe
S. Thomas, the angelic Doctor, in fpite of his fainthood>
aye, and S. Bonaventure too, the feraphic Doctor, who is
declared in the bull of his canonization- to have * difcourfed
on thefe matters as if the Holy Spirit fpoke by his mouth,'
were no better than rank heretics."

The fpecious arguments with which Roman Catholic
writers difguife the worfhip which is mown to images
are well expofed by Dr. Phillpotts. cc Decent refpect"
is all that Dr. Milner pretends to demand for them in
his End of Controverfy ; and he maintains that the
object for which pious pictures and images are re
tained in churches is " the fame for which pictures and
images are made and retained by mankind in general —
to put us in mind of the perfons and things they repre-
fent." The falfity of this is mown by Dr. Phillpotts
( i ) from the theory of the Roman Church as contained
in the decrees of the Second Nicene Council, on the
perfect infallibility of which the infallibility of the
Roman Church depends. Some curious cafes are re
corded of the teftimony rendered by bifhops and others

to dlfguife Doftrine of Image-worjhip. 99

at this council in favour of the wormipping of images.
There is one ftory (recited from the Limonarium of
Sophronius, Archbifhop of Jerufalem) attefting the
hatred which the devil bears to images, which is too
edifying to be omitted. A certain hermit was ha-
rafled by the demon of incontinence. One day the
devil prefented himfelf before him, and promifed that
he would tempt him no further, if he, on his part,
would fwear to obferve what he told him. The hermit
fwore. " Do not worfhip this image," faid the devil,
pointing to one of the Bleffed Virgin with the Child
Jefus in her arms, " and I will never attack you again."
The hermit felt that he had been incautious, and de
manded time for deliberation ; whereupon the devil went
away. Having confulted the Abbot Theodore, and
told him all that had pafTed, he was difmifled with the
following aflurance, "You had better not leave a (ingle
brothel in this city unvifited, than refufe to worfhip
our Lord Jefus with His mother in image." The
conduct of this hermit is compared by the Fathers of
the Council to S. Peter's denial of our Saviour with
an oath, and afterwards repenting !

" It is but juftice to the liberality of the council," fays
Dr. Phillpotts, " to ftate, that the quality of the perfonage
to whom the hermit had taken his oath is not permitted to
affedt the argument. They are determined folely by the
matter of the hermit's oath, as it involved a renunciation
of the wormip of images : fo that to my Proteftant readers
the judgment of thefe holy fathers may be more fimply ftated
thus ; it is a greater fin to keep the fecond commandment than
to break the third and the feventb."

TOO Summing-up of the Quejtion.

But the falfity of the ftatements of Roman apolo-
gifts about image-worfhip is alfo fhown (2) from the
practice of their Church. Dr. Phillpotts quotes paf-
fages from the Miflal where " the minifters of the altar,
and the reft in fucceflion, adore the crojs" and where
" the adoration of the crojs being finijhedy the deacon re
verently receives the crofs, and carries it back to the
altar." He alfo quotes prayers from the Pontificate Ro-
manum, "De benediftione nov<e Cruets," in the courfe of
which the pontiff kneels before the crofs, and "devoutly
adores //."

Dr. Phillpotts then demands whether the Roman
doctrine of image-worfhip is the harmlefs thing it is
reprefented to be. If it implied nothing more than
" decent refped,"—

" Could it," he alks, " have fo often led its followers to
the practice of direct idolatry ? Or could the rulers of your
Church have hefitated one inftant to forbid all images,
when the ufe of them was fo little neceflary, and the abufe
fo common and tremendous ? If it were only this, could car
dinals, and popes, and faints, have fo groflly mifconceived,
or fo impioufly perverted it ? If it were only this, could the
aflfembled piety and wifdom of the univerfal Church ; above
all, could that Holy Spirit, Whom the Lord of life and love fent
into the world to blefs, to comfort, and to fupport His chil
dren, could He, guiding by His fecret influence the decifions of
a general council, condemn the impugners of fuch a doctrine
to eternal torments ? Could He, for fo flight an error, have
fhut us out from all hopes of mercy, have denied us all mare
in our Redeemer's merits, made us outcafts from His love
and aliens from His inheritance ? Is it thus His blefled pro-
mife is fulfilled, that c even the bruifed reed He will not

Dr. Lingard s Unfaithfulnefs in Quotation, i o i

break, and the fmoking flax He will not quench ?' Has
that Holy Spirit told us that * we {hall not make to ourfelves
any graven image, nor the likenefs of anything in heaven,
in earth, or under the earth ; that we fhall not bow down to
them, nor worfhip them ;' and does the fame Spirit cut us
ofF for ever, if yet we fcruple to refpedl: and venerate them ?
Is the exacl: meafure of obfervance due to images, by the
will of God, fo very nice, fo very delicately poifed, and yet
is miftake on either fide big with danger to our foul's fal-
vation ?

" Will you dare to anfwer thefe queftions in the affirma
tive ? If you will not, you muft acknowledge that the re-
prefentation of your Church's doctrine, made by your mo
dern apologifts, is, in this inftance, falfe and deceitful."

The fourth Letter, relating to Dr. Lingard, the Ro
man Catholic hiftorian, an old antagonift of Dr. Phill-
potts,* and his unfaithfulnefs in quotation, is well
worthy of careful ftudy, as fhowing the petty artifices
which even the more refpectable among Roman Catholic
controverfialifts (hrink not from adopting to fupport
a tottering caufe. After fhowing the unfcrupulous way
in which he had garbled fome remarks of Anaftafius
Bibliothecarius, in his Preface to the Seventh Synod
(the Second Nicene), Dr. Phillpotts concludes, —

" Perhaps, however, you will by this time underftand
why I now attend not to what Dr. Lingard may fay, but to
what he may prove ; and that to a hiftory by that writer I do
not attend at all."

The attempt of Roman Catholic writers to foften
down the doclrine of " Purgatory" next engages the

* See page 12.

102 Romanijt Attempts to f of ten

attention of Dr. Phillpotts in the fifth Letter. Dr. Milner
had not feared to affert that there are only two points
defined by the Roman Church, viz. that there is a mid
dle ftate, called Purgatory, and that the fouls detained
in it are helped by the prayers of the faithful on earth.
This, it muft be confefled, is a comfortable, if not a fa-
tisfactory, way of getting out of the difficulties involved
in this dogma. But Dr. Phillpotts is not fo eafily
fatisfied : he therefore proceeds to ftate what purgatory
is according to authorized Roman writings. For bre
vity and accuracy it is probable that a better defcrip-
tion does not exift.

" It is the doctrine of the Church of Rome, that, although
in Baptifm all fin previoufly committed is freely forgiven,
and all punifhment on account of it, temporal as well as
eternal, is fully remitted, yet after Baptifm, mortal fins are
not dealt with fo leniently ; even when they have been re
mitted in the facrament of penance, and fo the guilt of
them (reatus culpte] and the eternal punifhment in hell on
account of them, have been removed. In fhort, there ftill
remains due to Divine juftice a temporary punifhment ; and
thofe who have not fatisfied for this temporary punifhment
by their works or their fufferings, in this life, muft fuffer
for them in purgatory after death. And fo neceflary an
article of faith is this held to be, that an anathema is ex-
prefsly denounced by the Council of Trent againft all who
fhall deny it."*

He then fpeaks of the authority attributed by Bel-
larmine to vifions, as attefting the exiftence of pur
gatory. That author, the depth of whofe learning

* Sefs. vi. c. 30.

down the Doctrine of Purgatory. 103

and the ftrength of whofe arguments muft ever give
him a foremoft place amongft controverfial writers, dif-
tinctly aflerts that it has pleafed God fometimes to
raife His fervants from the dead, and to fend them to
announce to the living what they have really beheld.
This aflertion, and the two narratives which follow
in fupport of it, are moft happily difpofed of by Dr.
Phillpotts :•—

" Here it is obvious to remark, how much more gracious
God is reprefented to have been to your Church in this
particular, than might have been expected from His decla
ration in the Gofpel, c If they hear not Mofes and the Pro
phets, neither will they be perfuaded, though one rofe from
the dead.' It may indeed be faid, and I am ready to admit
the whole force of the fuggeftion, that neither c Mofes and
the Prophets,' nor Chrift and His Apoftles, have faid a
fingle word about purgatory, and therefore an efpecial reve
lation in proof of it was by no means fuperfluous."

It is well known that S. Auguftine is claimed by
the Roman Catholics as an authority in favour of
their doctrine of purgatory ; but the flendernefs of the
grounds on which this claim is founded is not fo
generally underftood. Dr. Phillpotts goes into the
queftion at confiderable length in his fixth Letter, and
expofes the unfairnefs of Dr. Milner's quotations and
deductions.

"The truth is," he fays, "that the real words of
Auguftine, though a moft undeniable evidence in favour of
facrifices of the altar, and of alms for the dead, are a ftrong
teftimony againft the Roman doctrine of Purgatory"

That prayer for the dead was in ufe in the early

104 S. Augujiine and Purgatory.

Church Dr. Phillpotts readily enough admits, but con
tends that it was a very different thing from the
modern Roman practice, and proceeded on very dif
ferent grounds. So much fo indeed —

" That, in Auguftine, paflfages which prove the pra&ice
of prayer for the dead, are in general found in company
with others which negative a belief in purgatory, never (as
far as I have feen, or Dr. Milner has fhown), with any
which affirm it."

In the feventh Letter Dr. Phillpotts proceeds to
confider the means of relieving thofe who are con
fined in purgatory. And here he has recourfe to the
authorized documents of the Roman Church, which
fet forth that <c God has mercifully granted to the in
firmity of the human race, that one man may be able to
fatisfy for another ;" that is, to fatisfy for the tem
poral punimment due to mortal fins, whofe guilt and
eternal punimment are already remitted. This cer
tainly is a comfortable, if not an edifying, article of
belief, for it is in the power of furviving friends to
make that fatisfaclion for the fins of the deceafed which
he omitted to do before he died. On this arrange
ment of vicarious fatisfaction Dr. Phillpotts remarks
with as much of pleafantry as force : —

" As thefe friends of the deceafed may chance to be un
mindful of them, or may have enough to do on their own
account, a prudent penitent, if he be alfo an opulent one,
will take care, in contemplation of the pains of purgatory,
to make his teftamentary difpofitions in fuch a manner as
fhall fecure the performance of an adequate number of

Doffrine of Vicarious Satisfaction. 105

maflfes for his relief. The Council [of Trent], with laud
able attention to the equity of thefe tranfac~tions, ftri&ly
enjoins that the money {hall not have been received, without
a return of the money's worth : that c whatever {hall be due
for the faithful defunct, according to the foundations of
teftators, or on any other fcore, {hall be difcharged, not per
functorily, but by the priefts and minifters of the Church,
and others whom it may concern, with diligence and ac
curacy.' '

After pointing out that the cc faithful" in former
days had not been flow or niggardly in this comfortable
way of turning the mammon of unrighteoufnefs to a
ferviceable account, he continues : —

" Let us hear, then, the conclufion of the whole matter.
* How hardly {hall he who trufts in riches enter into the
kingdom of God,' fays the Gofpel of Chrift Jefus. * How
hardly mall he, who trufts in riches, be kept out of the
kingdom of God!' fays the gofpel of the Church of Rome.
If it be one of the high diftinctions of the former, that to
the poor the Gofpel is preached, it may be not lefs the ap
propriate boaft of the latter, that by it the cafe of the rich
has been no lefs happily provided for. Charles II. had
good reafon for faying that yours is the only religion for a
gentleman."

The eighth Letter is occupied with the confideration
of " Indulgences," the real nature of which it is the
aim of Roman Catholic writers to difguife. After
expofing fome of the expedients to which they fcruple
not to refort, Dr. Phillpotts proceeds to give a clear
and concife view of the ground on which the doctrine
refts, the correctnefs of which it would be eafy to
fuftain by authorities of the higheft credit in the
Roman Church.

I o 6 Indulgences .

" It refts, (as I need not remind you, though you have
made it neceflary that I fhould remind your readers,) on the
alleged < treafure of your Church,' a treafure which is abfo-
lutely inexhauftible ; for it confifts, firft, of all the merits of
Chrift's fufferings beyond what was neceflary for the re
demption of mankind ; and as thofe merits were infinite,
their value could not be diminifhed by that or any other
application of them ; they muft ftill, therefore, continue in
finite. But over and above, and (what is fomewhat remark
able) in aid of this infinite treafure, you have in the fecond
place, a fubfidiary hoard, namely, the merits of all the works,
which all or any of the faints have ever performed beyond
what was neceflary to fatisfy for themfelves ; thefe you, of
courfe, regard as a very large fum ; the Virgin Mary's
merits in particular muft have been enormous ; for (he had
not even venial fin of her own (as we have already feen) to
curtail their amount. Now, all thefe merits, I (ay, are a
facred treafure to be difpenfed at the difcretion of the
Church, that is, with rare exceptions, of the Pope, to meet
the exigencies of the faithful. Accordingly, Bellarmine
has faid that an c indulgence is nothing elfe, than an appli
cation of the fatisfa&ions, or penal works of Chrift and the
Saints.' "

Having ftated the doctrine, he next proceeds (2) to
the practice of the Roman Church in refpect of indul
gences.

The earlieft inftances on record were thofe granted
to the Crufaders, who, in confederation for their zeal in
fighting for the recovery of the Holy Land, received
from the Pope fc remiflion of all their fins," or, in other
words, entire exemption from the pains of purgatory.

" And this," fays Dr. Phillpotts, " it muft be allowed, was
only putting the armies of the Crofs on an equal footing with
thofe of the Crefcent. Mahomet had promifed to his

Practice of the Roman Church. 107

followers, that all who fell in battle oh his fide fhould be
admitted at once to the joys of Paradife ; and was it reafon-
able that the Pope fhould be backward in affording fimilar
encouragement to Chriftian warriors ?"

The cafes of Innocent III. and Honorius II. are
then cited, both of whom levied armies, in which
immunity from purgatory formed the chief part of
the pay.

" But thefe are all military and fomewhat perilous works,"
fays Dr. Phillpotts. " There were other indulgences granted
on more peaceful and ordinary occafions. Such was that of
Pafchal II. in favour of all who devoutly vifited the churches of
the Apoftles at Rome ; fuch, too, was that in favour of thofe
who aflift at the Pope's folemn benediction on Eafter Day.
In procefs of time, indeed, indulgences, even plenary ones,
were to be had on extremely reafonable terms. In the
pontificate of Leo X. they were fome of the moft market
able commodities of the day, and feem to have been fold fuffi-
ciently cheap."*

* " Thus were men taught to put their truft in riches ;
their wealth being thus inverted, became available to them
beyond the grave ; and in whatever fins they indulged, pro
vided they went through the proper forms, and obtained a
difcharge, they might purchafe a free paflage through pur
gatory, or at leaft an abbreviation of the term, and a miti
gation of its torments while they lafted. How fevere thefe
torments were to be, might in fome degree be eftimated by
the fcale appointed for thofe who were willing to commute,
at a certain rate, while they were alive. The fet-off for a
fingle year was fixed at the recitation of thirty pfalms, with
an accompaniment of one hundred ftripes to each : the
whole pfalter, with its accompaniment of fifteen thoufand,
availing only to redeem five years." — SOUTHEY'S Book of the
Church^ vol. i. chap. x.

1 08 Confeffion and Abfolution.

The ninth Letter, on "Confeflion and Abfolu
tion/' will be more appropriately confidered further
on in this work, in reference to a letter by Dr.
Phillpotts to the Dean of Exeter on the fame fubject.
It was reprinted in a feparate form, and obtained an
extenfive circulation among the clergy.

The tenth Letter, (a very fhort one,) " on the fup-
pofed legal neceflity of a minifter of the Church of
England giving evidence in a Court of Juftice, of
what has been confided to him in confeflion," arofe out
of the following circumftances. At the aflizes for
Northumberland, a prifoner, who was on his trial for
murder, had confefled his guilt to a prieft of the
Church of England. That clergyman was required
to give evidence of the confeflion, and an objection
to it taken by the prifoner's counfel was over-ruled by
Mr. Juftice Wilfon, before whom the cafe was tried.
The importance of this queftion it would be hard to
over-eftimate. While Dr. Phillpotts inclines to the
belief that confeflion to a prieft would fall under the
application of the ordinary law of evidence, and fo be
required to be divulged in a Court of Juftice, he never-
thelefs maintains that there is fpecial ground for
protection in the cafe of priefts of the Englijh Church.
This ground is to be difcovered in the Liturgy and
Rubrics, which, if not actually part of the law of the
land, are regarded by it "as pointing out, in all
particulars included in them, the real duty of Chrif-
tians." He refers to the rubric in the Office for the
Vifitation of the Sick, which, " in certain circumftances,

Evidence of Confejfion in Court ofjuftice. 109

enjoins fecret confeffion to a prieft, as a part of Chriftian
duty," and points out that the Liturgy, in the exhor
tation to Holy Communion, " fpecially invites " the
penitent to fimilar confeflion.

" Does, then, the Law of England," he inquires, " fub-
ject to civil mifchiefs of the graveft kind, thofe who comply
with what it admits to be their duty as Chriftians, becaufe
they comply with it? Is it thus that the great boaft of
Englifhmen is realized, that Chriftianity is part of the com
mon law of the land ? But this is not all. If the clergyman
is bound to reveal in evidence what has been communicated
to him in confeffion, he is alfo bound to reveal it, in cafe of
felony, without waiting to be fummoned as a witnefs at all.
If he does not, he is guilty of mifprifion of felony. Will a
principle, drawing this monftrous confequence after it, be
maintained ? Shall the clergyman be fubje&ed to fine and
imprifonment for not difclofmg to man what the law of God
commands him to conceal ? But to this extent the principle,
if it be a found one, muft be confefled to lead.'*

The thoroughly fenfible and practical view taken by
Dr. Phillpotts in the above extract entitles him to the
refpectful thanks of every Englim Churchman.

The eleventh Letter, on " Auguftine and Pelagius,"
requires no comment, as it merely fets forth that, in
Dr. Phillpotts' judgment, Mr. Southey, in his Book
of the Church^ has not formed an accurate eftimate of
the points in controverfy between them, inclining more
to the fide of Pelagius than is confiftent with any very
rigid notions of orthodoxy.

The twelfth Letter, on " Tranfubftantiation," affords
to Dr. Phillpotts an opportunity of ftating what he
conceives to be the doctrine of the Church of England

1 10 Tranfubftantiation.

on the Real Prefence. Reference has already been
made to places* where he treats the doctrine in gene
ral terms ; but here his ftatement is far more explicit:—

" She holds that after the confecration of the bread and
wine they are changed, not in their nature, but in their ufe ;
that, inftead of nourifhing our bodies only, they now are
inftruments by which, when worthily received, God gives
to our fouls the Body and Blood of Chrift to nourifh and
fuftain them ; that this is not a fictitious or imaginary exhi
bition of our crucified Redeemer to us, but a real though
fpiritual one ; more real, indeed, becaufe more effectual,
than the carnal exhibition and manducation of Him could
be, (for the flefh profiteth nothing.) In the fame manner,
then, as our Lord Himfelf faid, c I am the true bread that
came down from heaven,' (not meaning thereby that He
was a lump of baked dough, or manna, but the true means
of fuftaining the true life of man, which is fpiritual, not
corporeal,) fo, in the Sacrament, to the worthy receiver of
the confecrated elements, though in their nature mere bread
and wine, are yet given truly, really, and effectively, the
crucified Body and Blood of Chrift ; that Body and Blood
which were the inftruments of man's redemption, and upon
which our fpiritual life and ftrength folely depend. It is in
this fenfe that the crucified Jefus is prefent in the Sacrament
of His Supper, not in, nor with, the bread and wine, nor
under their accidents, but in the fouls of communicants ; not
carnally, but effectually and faithfully, and therefore moft
really."

This extract is given, not as containing the true
doctrine of the Church of England on the fubject of
the Holy Eucharift, but for the purpofe of hereafter

* Pages 36 and 81.

Defence ofArchblJhop Wake. \ i r

comparing it with other ftatements by Dr. Phillpotts.*
Meanwhile, it may fuffice to fay that this expofition of
dodlrine rifes not at all above the level of Zuinglian-
ifm, fince it is founded throughout on the notion of a
mzrzfubjeffive prefence, the objective being never taken
into account. In the laft paragraph it feems to be
forgotten that the thing received in the Holy Eucha-
rift confifts of two parts, different indeed in character,
yet infeparably united one to the other — the Jacra-
mentum and the res Jacramenti ; and that in receiving
the former we alfo receive the latter. Whether, how
ever, we alfo receive the virtus Jacramenti is another
queftion, and one which depends upon the difpofitions
with which we receive that holy facrament.

The commencement of the thirteenth Letter is occu
pied with a defence of Archbifhop Wake againft the
imputation of favouring Roman doctrines. The idea
having been firft ftarted by the Bifhop of Norwich in
his place in Parliament, it was eagerly adopted by Dr.
Milner, and turned againft the clergy of the Church,
for the purpofe of mowing their intolerant ipirit. The
conduct of the Archbifhop has already been referred
to ; f it will be needlefs, therefore, to fay more than
that Dr. Phillpotts thoroughly expofes the difingenuous
ufe which Dr. Milner had attempted to make of his

* Particularly in reference to a reply to an Addrefs of the
Clergy of the Diocefe of Exeter on the cafe of Archdeacon
Denifon.

t See pages 34—37.

1 1 2 Bijhop Hoadley and the Englifli Clergy.

revered name. With equal force and ability does he
difpofe of the charge that a large proportion of the
Church of England were difciples of Hoadley, and,
as fuch, denied the exiftence of Sacraments. After
aflerting that in the experience of his whole life, fpent
under circumftances which gave him unufual oppor
tunities for obferving the opinions of thofe with whom
he had to deal, he had never met with a fingle minifter
of the Church who held the notion imputed to them,
Dr. Phillpotts continues : —

" The truth is, (and for teftimony to it I appeal to all
men of all fe£ts and parties who have any opportunity of
obferving,) that, whatever faults may be afcribed to the
prefent clergy of the Church of England, indifference to the
tenets of that Church forms no part of their character.
There is, on the contrary, an increafed and increafmg fpirit
of earneftnefs in inveftigating, and of zeal in preaching them ;
nor could an adverfary at any period fince the Reformation,
with lefs ihadow of juftice than at prefent, have arraigned
the Eftablifhed Church for unfaithfulnefs to the Articles of
their religion. Nay, even in Hoadley's own time, fo little
were his notions countenanced by the clergy, that the Lower
Houfe of Convocation parted a ftrong vote againft him ; nor
could anything have fhielded him from the further confe-
quences of their indignation, had not the injuftice or the
timidity of Government prevented that body from ever
deliberating again."

Letter the fourteenth is on " the Power of the Pope/'
which Dr. Phillpotts characterizes rightly enough as a
monftrous claim to a pre-eminence, not of rank merely,
but of authority and jurifdiction over the greateft
princes of the earth — a right to depofe them for herefy

'The Power of the Pope. 1 1 3

and favouring herefy, and a confequent right to abfolve
fubjects from their allegiance. After quoting the
Council of Florence, the Fourth Lateran Council, and
the canons in fupport of this view of the Papal power,
he proceeds to fhow that it was no mere empty honour,
but was often exercifed in a way at once energetic and
formidable. A Roman Catholic witnefs before the
Committee of the Houfe of Commons having aflerted
that the Popes refted their title to temporal interference
upon fbme temporal right previoufly acquired by
themfelves or their predeceflbrs, Dr. Phillpotts con
tinues: —

" I may be permitted to aflc, What temporal right had
been acquired by Gregory III. over the Eaftern Empire,
entitling him to forbid taxes to be paid to Leo the Iconoclaft,
who had been excommunicated by him ? Again, who had
given Zachary, or any of his predeceflbrs, any temporal
right over the kingdom of France, by virtue of which he
a&ually depofed Childeric on account of his being indolent
and ufelefs, and fubftituted Pepin in his place ?"

He might alfo have inquired, with equal force,
what right Alexander the Vlth had to beftow America
on Spain, and India on Portugal.

After an examination of Bellarmine's doctrine of
the Pope's power in temporals, a fomewhat inftructive
portion of which is that the Church does not always
exercife the right, cc either becauje it has not fufficient
ftrength, or does not think it expedient" Dr. Phillpotts
goes on to confider the treatment of heretics. Fully
admitting the right of the Church to cut off its un
worthy members, —

I

1 1 4 The Treatment of Heretics.

" Therefore," he fays, " if excommunication were all
the penalty which the Church of Rome had claimed a right
to inflicT:, there could be no fair ground of complaint againft
her ; even though the civil power, acting on the judgment
of the Church, fliould, of its own motion, inflict on thofe
whom the Church had excommunicated any meafure of pun-
ifhment whatever."

But, fo far from this being the cafe, the Great
Lateran Council * had decreed that heretics were to be
delivered over to the fecular power, to be puniftied in
the manner that is due.

"What that manner is," fays Dr. Phillpotts, " I need
hardly remind my readers. It was death — death in its moft
appalling form, death by burning. This accurfed fentence
was the invention of the Church of Rome ; its canons
recognize it, thofe canons to which councils refer."

As to the queftion whether oaths with heretics are
binding, after quoting the well-known cafes of John
Hus, and Jerome of Prague, Dr. Phillpotts mentions
another, which, if lefs widely known, is equally to the
point : —

" It is the cafe of Paul V, who is faid to have adopted a
more ingenious, and hardly lefs fatisfa&ory courfe, than the
Council of Conftance followed in Jerome's inftance. Father
Fulgentio, the friend of the illuftrious Paul Sarpi, was pre
vailed with to come to Rome under a fafe-conducl: granted
by the Pope. When there, he was treated as a heretic, and
on appealing to his fafe-conducT: was anfwered, that the con-
duff was fafe for bis coming thither, but not for his going
thence. After this, who will deny the ftria fidelity of the
Church of Rome to all its engagements with heretics ?

* Convened by Innocent III. in 1215.

Spirit of the Papacy unchanged. 1 1 5

Among thefe engagements, it has always reckoned as the
moft facred that of labouring for the fpiritual good of its
rebellious children, 'the deferters from its camp,' as the
Catechifm of Trent calls them, by a little gentle corporal
correction."

In the fifteenth and laft Letter Dr. Phillpotts aflerts
that the fpirit of the Papacy is ever the fame, and that
if it is now lefs imperious in its demands than formerly,
it is from lack of power to enforce them.

" Not that there is any ground of hope," he fays, " that
the fpirit of Rome is grown at all more tolerant, lefs
ferocious, or lefs ambitious. It is declared by its own advo
cates to be unaltered and unalterable. The hiftory of ages
attefts the momentous truth. Twelve hundred years have
now patted over the heads of men fmce this fpiritual
tyranny firft fhowed its portentous form ; during that period
ftates and empires have difappeared from the face of the
earth ; but Rome, Papal Rome, is ftill the fame — ftill ad
heres with undiminifhed zeal to that one fubtle, daring
fyftem, which, through every variety of power and fortune,
it has contrived to cherifh, and commonly to advance."

He then in fiances the recall of the Jefuits by Pius
VII, after they had been banifhed by Clement XIV,
and the revival of the Inquifition, as evidence of the
unyielding fpirit of Rome, and the pertinacity with
which me returns to her original principles. Speaking
of the Inquifition, he denounces it as —

" That accurfed inftrument of fpiritual tyranny, which
no Englifh Proteftant, even in the fecurity of his own land,
can think on without horror. The office of the Inquifition,
which owed its rigour at leaft, if not its birth, to the
fame Pontiff who convened the great Lateran Council, and
there devifed thofe decrees againft heretics which nothing

1 1 6 Char after of the Letters.

but fuch an inftitution could execute, — that Inquifition
which Paul IV. afcribed to the fpecial infpiration of the
Holy Ghoft, and with his dying breath commended to his
cardinals as effentlal to the very e xiftence of the authority of the
Church, — that Inquifition is again in being, not in Spain
only, but in Italy. Need I fay more. The monfter
lives !"

The Letter concludes with Tome well-turned compli
ments on the character and abilities of Mr. Butler, and
an earneft deprecation on the part of Dr. Phillpotts
of any afperity which inadvertently may have ap
peared.

But, fo far from any harfhnefs being traceable in
thefe Letters, they are in truth models of courtefy.
Never for one moment does Dr. Phillpotts forget
what is due to his own character, and that of his
opponent ; nor can a fingle inftance be cited in which
he endeavours to ftrengthen his argument by any un-
candid ftatement of facts. An air of fairnefs breathes
through every line.

Well might the writer fay to his adverfaries : —

" There is no terror in your threats,
For I am armed fo ftrong in Honefty,
That they pafs by me as the idle wind,
Which I refpea not."

Would that all controverfialifts would follow in the
fteps of Dr. Phillpotts and not regard the end, with
out jealoufly watching over the means!

If his language occaflonally aflumes the tone of in
dignant proteft, it is due to thofe fpiritual guides of
Mr. Butler who mifled him on points where his own

Character of the Letters. 117

judgment would never have feduced him. Arduous
as was the tafk of hunting profefled controverfialifts
through every citation they made, yet all muft admire
the forbearance of Dr. Phillpotts while expofing
even the moft difingenuous and clumfy of their
devices. His temper never fails him under circum-
ftances the moft irritating. From beginning to end
he mingles a quiet humour with his argument, which
relieves the fubjedt of its tedioufnefs, and reveals the
almoft boundlefs refources of his wit. That Mr. Butler
himfelf was powerfully impreiTed with the courtefy of
his opponent may be gathered from the facl: of his
feeking an introduction to him, and cultivating his
acquaintance. .

u8

CHAPTER IX.

Supplemental Letter to Mr. Butler. Its Origin. Dr. Kelly's
Attempt to explain away Prayers addrejjed to the Virgin.
His Sophiftry expofed. Examples of Blafphemous Prayers.
Image-wor/hip evaded by Roman Catholic Writers. Mira
culous Images. The Bambino and Winking Virgin of An-
cona. Profufenefs of thefe Wonders. Their authority fup-
ported by Official Documents. Dr. Murray's View of
Indulgences. His Difmgenuous Dealing. An Example. The
Length of Time for which Indulgences are available. Dif-
honefty of Roman Catholic Writers. Confejjion. Flagrant
Example of its Abufe. Prohibition of the Free Ufe of the
Scriptures. Fearful Terms in which they are fpoken of by
Roman Catholic Writers. The Power of the Pope. At
tempt of Dr. Doyle to f of ten it down expofed. Danger of
the Dottrine in a country like Ireland. The Interference of
Government in the Appointment of Irijh Roman Catholic
Bijhops. Allowed by the Pope, but repudiated by the Roman
Catholic Bijhops themfelves. Prevarication of Dr. Doyle.
The Oath taken by Roman Catholic Bijhops to the Pope. Its
Origin. Canonization of Gregory VII. The Third Canon
of the Fourth Council of Lateran. Attempt of Roman
Catholics to repudiate it expofed. The Cafe of John Hus
fully confidered. The DocJrine of Exclusive Salvation as
taught by the Church of Rome. Its Danger. Difinge-
nuous Ufe of the l%tb Article of Religion by Roman Catholic
Writers. An Expofition of it. Peril of admitting Roman
Catholics to a Share in the Legijlature. Pretenftons of the
Roman Church as Jlated by Dr. Doyle. Pofition of Members
of the Eftablijhed Church according to the Roman Theory.
Examples of the Overbearing Spirit of the Roman Church.
Appeal to the more Moderate Members of that Communion.
Ejllmate of Dr. Doyle.

Supplemental Letter to Mr. Butler. 1 1 9

|ARLY in the following year, 1826, a
fecond Letter to Mr. Butler* appeared,
dedicated to the Bifhop of London (Dr.
Howley). This was caufed mainly by
the evidence taken before felect Committees of the
two Houfes of Parliament, appointed in the feflions of
1824 and 1825 to inquire into the ftate of Ireland, —
fome idea of the ponderous character of which may be
gathered from the fact that a digeft of it occupies two
moderately thick octavo volumes. In the courfe of
their examination the Irifh. Roman Catholic Bimops
had endeavoured to give fuch a view of the doctrines
and practices of their Church as was both at variance
with facts and calculated to excite an undue feeling of
fympathy for the caufe of Roman Catholic relief.
Much credit, therefore, belongs to Dr. Phill potts for
expofing the deception, and tearing away the flimfy
veil of fophiftry with which they had fought to difguife
the deformity of their modern inventions.

Dr. Kelly, the Roman Catholic Archbimop of
Tuam, and confequently no mean authority in his
Church, had endeavoured to perfuade the Committee

* " A Supplemental Letter to Charles Butler, Efq., on fome
Parts of the Evidence given by the Irifh Roman Catholic
Bifhops, particularly by Dr. Doyle, before the Committees
of the two Houfes of Parliament in the Seflion of 1825, and
alfo on certain Paflages in Dr. Doyle's c Eflay on the Catholic
Claims/ by the Rev. Henry Phillpotts, D.D., Reftor of
Stanhope."

1 20 Dr. Kelly s bophiftry expofed.

of the Houfe of Commons that the nature and obje<5l
of prayers addrefled to the BlefTed Virgin were com
monly mifunderftood — that me cannot, as was repre-
fented, grant favours of herfelf, but that me may,
through her powerful interceffion, obtain favours from
God for us. The following prayer was then adduced:
" Te deprecor ut mea inopia fublevetur, ut per te
purgationem peccatorum obtineam ;" upon which Dr.
Kelly remarked, with more of ingenuity than honefty,
that <c the ufe of the word per conftitutes it a prayer
of interceflion ; that it is through her interceflion only
that all thefe favours are fought to be obtained by
this prayer." This was too fpecious an argument to
be allowed to pafs, and therefore Dr. Phillpotts
replies : —

" Now this, at leaft, is making the diftin£Hon to be very
finely drawn, and fufpends the whole weight of the honour
due to God on a very (lender thread. To any one who may
chance to ufe this prayer, without underftanding this folitary
prepofition in Dr. Kelly's fenfe, (which is by no means its
only or its moft obvious fenfe,) it is then an acl: of the utmoft
impiety; it is a transfer to a mere creature of the honour
due, by the Word of God, to God only."

He then quotes extracts from books of devotion
in common ufe among Roman Catholics, to mow the
extravagant nature of the prayers addrefTed to the
Virgin. Whether they harmonize as completely as
could be wifhed with the explanation of Dr. Kelly
may be judged from the following, where me is
invoked as " the great Mediatrix between God and

Examples of Blafpbemous Prayers. 1 2 1

man, obtaining for finners all they can afk and demand
of the Blefled Trinity/'* (p. 293 ;) and again, " Hail,
Mary, Lady and Miftrefs of the world, to whom all
power has been given both in heaven and earthy'
(p. 206.)

After quoting other blafphemous prayers to the
Virgin Mary commonly ufed in England, Dr. Phill-
potts continues, and every devout mind muft mare
his honeft indignation : —

" I will not wound the feelings of my Proteftant readers
by producing any more of this difgufting, this polluting trafh.
But I call on Dr. Kelly, or any other apologift of your
Church ; above all, on Dr. Milner, by whofe authority thefe
abominations profefs to be fet forth for the edification of the
* Faithful of the Midland DiftricT:,' to produce, if he can,
fome lurking prepofition, as in the former inftance — fome
potent particle, which may refcue thofe who ufe them, and
efpecially the Apoftolic Vicar, who has fan&ioned the ufe of
them, from the charge of direct and moft atrocious blaf-
phemy."

Faffing from this fubject, he goes on to difcufs the
honour paid to images. Dr. Kelly had wifhed to
make it appear that Roman Catholics attached no
importance to them beyond their ufe in reminding the
faithful of circumftances connected with religious
duties. But if the Committee of the Houfe of Com
mons was fatisfied with this explanation, the humour

* " Devotion to the Sacred Heart of the Blefled Virgin
Mary. By R. R. John Milner, Bifhop of Caftalaba, Vicar
Apoftolic. Keating and Brown, 1821.'*

122 Miraculous Images.

of Dr. Phillpotts is not fo indulgent towards the apolo
getic prelate. Accordingly, he brings forward the
cafe of miraculous images, — " images which, as having
at fome time been the inftruments, or media, of fuper-
natural effects, are expected to repeat their prodigies,
and are reforted to with much confidence and venera
tion accordingly." Thefe wonder-working images are
by no means uncommon in Roman Catholic countries,
and an edifying volume might be compiled in attefta-
tion of the prodigies which they have effected.

The ftory of the Bambino of Ara Celi — which, hav
ing been taken away from its niche to perform the
office of Lucina to a lady of quality, arrived at the
door of the church in the middle of the night, figni-
fying its prefence by a tremendous knocking, and, on
being admitted, went ftraight to its accuftomed place,
throwing down an intrufive image — is too well known
to need repeating. But, perhaps, even this marvel
lous and pugnacious image is furpafTed by the ftatue
of the Winking Virgin in the Cathedral of Ancona, in
honour of which a pious fraternity was inftituted by
the Pope, under the name of the " Sons and Daughters
of Mary." Not that this was by any means a folitary
inftance of miraculous power ; for —

" It would be great injuftice to the other images of the
Virgin Mary in Italy," fays Dr. Phillpotts, " to fuppofe that
they continued idle, while their flluftrious fifter at Ancona
was thus delighting the good people of that city. Far from
it : at Rome, at Civita Vecchia, at Macerata, at Afcoli, at
Frafcati, &c. &c., the Madonnas were everywhere on the
alert, and there was an abfolute rivalry and emulation in
winking among thefe holy images."

Dr. Murray's View of Indulgences. 123

He then proceeds to quote the official memoirs of
miraculous images, of which it is hard to fay whether
they are moft ludicrous or profane. Dr. Phillpotts
finds in thefe ftories a congenial field for the exercife
of his wit, and if he indulges in pleafantry at the ex-
penfe of weeping and perfpiring images, it certainly
is no more than they deferve. The painful part of
the whole is that thefe monftrous legends are no mere
vulgar fuperftition, but are extracted from legal pro-
cefles inftituted in Ecclefiaftical Courts, and duly certi
fied as true. No wonder that Dr. Kelly was afhamed
of them. We may pardon him for trying to get rid
of them, even at the rifk of bringing down upon him-
felf the avenging lafh of Dr. Phillpotts.

The fubject of Indulgences is next brought forward.
The Roman Catholic prelates had endeavoured to mow
that they did not relate to a future ftate, but (in the
words of Dr. Murray, Roman Catholic Archbifhop of
Dublin) only to " a certain portion of the temporal
punimment due to fin." This was, in effect, finking
all idea of purgatory, and reducing the doctrine to the
leaft offenfive fhape.

"It would be interefting to know," fays Dr. Phillpotts,
" what that c certain portion ' is ; and it would be ftill more
interefting to learn what courfe the Church of Rome would
take with the Archbiftiop, if, inftead of making this conve
nient infmuation before .an aflembly of heretics, he fhould
venture to deny categorically, before the world, the power
of the Church to grant a full remiflion of all the temporal
punifhment of fin in fuch cafes."

He then recounts the unworthy expedients to which

i 24 Dr. Murray's Difingenuous Dealing.

Dr. Murray, and his brother prelates, Templed not to
refort, in order to foften down the harfrmefs of the
dodtrine of Indulgences, which, when ftated in its bare
form, muft ever be repulfive to Englifh ears. Their
examination before the Committee of the Lords is an
example of evafion and difingenuous dealing, which
may fpeak highly for the acutenefs of their intellects,
but which will not be loft upon thofe whofe bufinefs
lies with the Roman controverfy. Thefe gentlemen
are very ecclefiaftical chameleons ; firft one colour,
then another, and, occafionally, all colours at the fame
time.

One of their many variations of hue muft fuffice.
Dr. Murray had ftated, that " Indulgences can be ap-
Jied to fouls in purgatory only by way of fuffrage,
that is, as a prayer ;" and had fpoken of this as " our
belief," "our doctrine." The attempt to confound
" fuffrage " with <c prayer " is more ingenious, perhaps,
than honeft ; but the expreffions, " our belief," " our
doctrine," as applied to the ftatement above, involve,
unhappily, fomething more than a mere exercife of
ingenuity.

" If," fays Dr. Phillpotts, " they mean merely to exprefs,
each in the fulnefs of epifcopal authority, that fuch is the
belief or doctrine of himfelf individually, it is clear they are
cajoling the Committee, whofe inquiry is folely directed to
the belief and doctrine of their Church. If, on the other
hand, they mean, as it would be reafonable to fuppofe, the
belief and doctrine of their Church, they affirm what they
cannot but know to be utterly unfounded. For they muft
know perfectly well that the opinion, which they afcribe to

DIJhonefly of Roman Catholic Writers. 125

their Church, would be held in abomination by the great
majority of Divines who have treated on the fubje&, and is
in direct contradi&ion to the Papal bulls by which Indul
gences are granted."*

The length of time for which indulgences are avail
able next comes under confideration. Upon this point
the Roman Catholic bimops appeared fufpicioufly ill-
informed. The utmoft that could be extracted from
them was, that no indulgence was recognized cc for
a period beyond that of feven years." Without flop
ping to refrem the failing memory of thefe worthy
prelates, by a reference to the authoritative writings of
their own Church, Dr. Phillpotts mentions a circum-
ftance which, if it fails of conveying all the edification
it is capable of, is yet very appofite to the matter in
hand : —

u I have now before me an engraved portrait of the Virgin
Mary's foot, taken from her true fhoe, recently publifhed in
Italy, conferring, by authority of John XXII. and Clement
VIII, an Indulgence of three hundred years on all who
fhall kifs it three times, and recite thereupon three Ave
Marias."

Any one in pofleflion of this precious relic might,
with the aid of the winking image, feel tolerably eafy
about purgatory, even though the Irim prelates can
not grant him relief for more than feven years.

The next fubject on which Dr. Phillpotts remarks
is Confeflion, as practifed in the Englifh and Roman

* For the real doctrine of Indulgences, as taught by the
Roman Church, fee Dr. Phillpotts' firft Letter to Mr. Butler,
page 1 06.

126 ConfeJJion.

Churches ; but, as this fubjecl: will be fully handled
hereafter,* for the purpofe of fhowing the maturer fen-
timents of Dr. Phillpotts on this important doctrine,
it will not be neceflary to enter upon it now, any fur
ther than to (how the evil ufe to which it is fome-
times turned by Roman priefts. In regard to the
much- vaunted fecrefy of the confeflional, it deferves to
be known that their practice has not always kept pace
with their theory. Dr. Phillpotts cites, on the au
thority of the hiftorian Du Thou, a flagrant example
of this — no lefs a perfonage than Pope Sixtus V, who —

" After he had fucceeded to the Papal chair, availed him-
felf, in many cafes, of the fecrets formerly confided to him in
the confeflional, at a time when his great fanctity had ren
dered him the moft popular confeflbr in Rome. He kept a
regifter of thefe matters, and not only brought many perfons
to juftice for crimes which had been fo communicated to
himfelf, but he likewife fent for the oldeft confeflbrs, and
required them to communicate to him whatever crimes had
been confefled to them. Several complied, and Leti jufti-
fies the proceeding by the neceflity of the times."

The prohibition of the free ufe of the Scriptures by
the Roman Catholics is next considered. Dr. Doyle
had taken great credit to himfelf and his brethren that
feven editions of the Bible had been publimed in Ire
land flnce the invention of printing. It is eafy enough
to print books, but if they are not allowed to be read
when they are printed, it comes to much the fame as
if they had never been printed at all. And this is how

* See firft Letter to Mr. Butler, page 108.

Prohibition of Free Ufe of Scriptures. 127

the Bible fared in Ireland ; for, by way of reply to this
felf-glorification of the Roman Catholic prelates, Dr.
Phillpotts quotes the fourth rule De Libris prohibitis,
" approved and confirmed by Pius IV," which pro
vides that whofoever mail prefume to read bibles (tranf-
lated, be it obferved, by Roman Catholic authors)
without the poflefllon of a faculty in writing, mall
not be capable of receiving abfolution of their fins,
unlefs they have firft given up their bibles to the
ordinary. If, then, the feven editions had been multi
plied to feventy, it would not have made much diffe
rence, as long as the Pope remained in fuch a mind.
But this was the reftriction of a darker age, it may be
thought. We would thankfully admit the plea, had
not Pope Leo XII, no later than 1 8 24, in an encyclical
letter, defcribed the Holy Scriptures, tranflated into the
vulgar tongue, as cc poifonous paftures" and declared
that " if the facred Scriptures be everywhere indifcri-
minately publifhed, more evil than advantage will arife
thence, on account of the ramnefs of men." Terrible
as is this language, it is only the reproduction of the
blafphemies of bygone days. " Vain is the labour which
is fpent on Holy Scripture," is the language of Cardinal
Hofius, a papal legate at the Council of Trent ; " it is
but a creature, and a beggarly element." Another mem
ber of the fame council declares that it cc is only lifelefs
ink ;" while a writer of eminence ihrinks not from call
ing it " a nofe of wax, which allows itfelf to be pulled
this way and that, and to be moulded into any form you
pleafe." But fearful as was the language of Leo, it was

128 The Power of the Pope.

endorfed by the Irifh prelates, as in duty bound, whc
averred, " In this fentiment of our head and chief
fully concur." Is it too much, after this, to fay, wil
an eminent living divine,* " Scripture is to be treat<
as its Divine Author was by the fervants of Caiaph;
and the foidiers of Pilate— firft blindfolded, buffefc
and fpit upon, and then put to death."

The power of the Pope is next confidered, as Dr.
Doyle had declared on oath that it was the doctrine
of his Church that " the Popes have no right whatever
to interfere with the temporal fovereignties or rights
of kings or princes." To any one but moderately
acquainted with hiftory this aflertion muft be ftartling.
Great, indeed, muft have been Dr. Doyle's effrontery to
have ventured upon fuch a ftatement in the prefence
of educated Englifh gentlemen, and greater far muft
have been his credulity, if he could expect that it fhould
be believed. Rightly enough does Dr. Phillpotts fay : —

" There are fome petitions which it is difficult to refute,
without appearing to depart from the refpeft which an author
ought always to feel for the underftanding and information
of his readers : and if there ever was an inftance of this kind,
the prefent may pre-eminently claim to be fo regarded."

Without taking ad vantage, then, of the enlarged term
of nine centuries, during which, if Dr. Doyle was to
be believed, the Popes had never exercifed the power fo
ftrangely imputed to them, and fuppofing that fuch
perfonages as Innocent III, Gregory VII, and Boni
face VIII, had never exifted, Dr. Phillpotts limits his

* Dr. Wordfworth : Letters to M. Gondon.

Papal Influence perilous to Ireland. 129

inquiry to three centuries, commencing with the Bull
in Ccena Domini, put forth by Paul III. in 1536, and
ending with the excommunication of Buonaparte by
Pius VII. in 1 809. The refult of this investigation it is
needlefs to dwell upon ; neither is it pleafant to paufe
longer than is necefTary to contemplate the woe-begone
figure of Dr. Doyle, as he ftrives to fhelter himfelf from
the mercilefs pelting of his adverfary's facts.

That the power of the Pope, as far as moft Euro
pean nations are concerned, is at the prefent time little
more than a name, will be readily admitted ; but it is
no lefs true that this name, empty as it is, may pro
duce the moft terrible refults in minds which are de-
bafed by crime or enervated by fuperftition. To fuch
as thefe the Papacy of the prefent day is all that it was
in the days of Hildebrand ; and even though the Holy
Father may be a prifoner in the hands of the cc eldeft
fon of the Church," he has but to fpeak the word, and
the kings of the earth will come to do him homage.
Little of this feeling may furvive in Italy, but it burns
with a brightnefs, which centuries of bloodmed have
not been able to quench, in many an Irifh cabin. Harm-
lefs, therefore, as the pretenfions of the Pope may be
in more enlightened countries, among the Roman Ca
tholic population of Ireland they are full of peril.

" Its truth," fays Dr. Phillpotts, " is written in charafters
of blood in the hiftory of Ireland itfelf : and be it always re
membered, that while the lights and intelligence of other
nations have been incalculably progreflive, the Irifh (the
Roman Catholic Irifh multitude I mean), continue nearly

K

130 Dr. Doyle's Sophtftry expofed.

what they were in the middle of the feventeenth century, in
the days of Ormond and Rinuccini. That multitude could
again be ftimulated by an ambitious priefthood to defeat the
honeft efforts of the nobles and the gentry of the land, whofe
wifhes and whofe views muft always ultimately be for peace —
and to re-plunge their country in all the horrors of civil war."

The next fubject referred to is the interference
of Government in the appointment of Irifh Roman
Catholic Bifhops. Although the Pope himfelf had,
in the year 1815, given his exprefs and formal affent
to a propofal of this defcription, yet Dr. Doyle had
the hardihood to affirm that it would be inconfiftent
with the difcipline of the Roman Catholic Church to
admit any interference, direct or indirect, of the Pro-
teftant Sovereign of this country in the appointment
of Roman Catholic Bifhops in Ireland. The preva
rication of this prelate is an edifying ftudy to thofe
who may have the curiofity to fee what latitude is
allowed to Roman Catholic controverfialifts, when the
interefl of their Church is at flake. The Committee
of both Houfes find it impoffible to get a ftraight-
forward anfwer from him. He unites all the flipperi-
nefs of the eel to the wilinefs of the ferpent. It is
only when he falls into the hands of Dr. Phillpotts
that he finds there is no efcape, and then the real
value of his afTertions are feen. All his fophiftry
avails him not. His mofl fpecious arguments crumble
into duft at the touch of his remorfelefs antagonift.
He ftands forth convicted of a wilful attempt to dif-
guife, if not to pervert, the truth.

The oath taken by Irifh Roman Catholic Bifhops to

Canonization of Gregory VII. 131

the Pope next comes under confideration.* Dr. Phill-
potts mows that it is of a feudal character, and " had its
origin not merely in the feudal times, but in the preten-
fions of the Pope to be the fupreme feudal chief, of
whom all temporal princes, even emperors and kings,
were feudatories and vaflals." It was originally of
much fmaller dimenfions than at prefent ; but if it has
developed, the theory of it is ftill the fame — to give
to the Pope that dominion over the nations of the
earth which has been fo arrogantly claimed and fo
mercilefsly ufed. Pius V, as is well known, was
canonized for the vigour which he difplayed in the
exercife of this power ; but Dr. Phillpotts cites—

" A name far more eminent than his, the noted Hilde-
brand — that Gregory VII. who claimed the univerfal domi
nion of the world as an appendage of his See — whofe life
was one unceafmg effort to realize this claim — who was as
little turned afide from the profecution of his holy purpofe
by confiderations of his own fafety, as by a regard for the
peace and tranquillity of mankind — that Gregory of whom
Dr. Doyle himfelf fays, that the unhappy Rodolph (who
had been fet up by him to fill the Imperial throne, of which
he had deprived the lawful owner), when about to pay the
forfeit of his crime, c confefled that, induced thereto by the
Pope, he had rebelled againft his Sovereign ' — that Gregory
of whom Dr. Doyle further tells us, on the authority of the
chronicler Sigebert, that * when he found himfelf near his
end, he acknowledged that be bad^ at the inftigation of the
devil, Jtirred up enmities andjtrife among ft mankind^ and fent
to the Emperor to folicit his forgivenefs — that very Gregory
of whom the moft charitable judgment which can be pafled

* For the terms of this oath, fee Appendix B.

1 32 The Third Canon of the

is that he was a crack-brained fanatic— was, in the i8th
century, by Benedict: XIII. placed among the faints!— a
holy fervice was appointed to his honour — all good Catholics
were called upon to bend the knee in adoration to him —
and the worfhip of God Himfelf was profaned by thanking
Him for giving this firebrand to the world, and by pray
ing that his example might Jiill edify and ftrengthen the
Church."

Moft people will probably think that Dr. Phill-
potts has done but fcanty juftice to the memory of
one of the greateft of thofe whoever wore the triple
crown. That Hildebrand lived only to make the
Roman Pontiff the fovereign of the world may be
true enough ; but no one who has watched the in
flexible determination with which he followed up his
purpofe, and the ikill with which he difpofed of his
refources, can fairly call him fc a crack-brained fanatic."
Here, then, a pardonable zeal for his caufe has carried
Dr. Phillpotts too far. The account alfo which he
gives of Hildebrand fending to the Emperor to fue
for his forgivenefs differs from the commonly- received
verfion, which reprefents him as abfolving and bleffmg
his enemies, with the refolute exceptions of the Em
peror and the Anti-Pope.

The next fubject confidered is the Third Canon
of the Fourth Council of Lateran, which enforces on
the faithful the duty of exterminating heretics. It
was natural enough that, in their prefent yielding
temper, the Roman Catholic prelates mould defire to
difown the obligation of fuch a canon, particularly in a
country where the probability of its ever being carried

Fourth Council of Later an. 133

into effect happened to be very remote. But in their
exceflive defire to pleafe they involved themfelves in a
ferious difficulty. Not content with repudiating the
doctrine laid down in the Canon, they threw difcredit
upon the Canon itfelf, and afferted roundly that it
was not to be found in the A<5ls of the Council at all.
This was taking the bull by the horns with a ven
geance. They had calculated, doubtlefs, upon no one
being at the pains to refer to the Acts of the Council,
and expofe their audacity. In this cafe all would
have been well. But Dr. Phillpotts had had too
much experience of the amount of credit due to the
ftatements of thefe complaifant prelates to truft them
over much ; and fo, having examined every printed
edition of the Council's Acts, he tells them plainly
that the repudiated Canon appears in every one of them,
and that there does not exift the flighteft intimation
of any doubt as to its being genuine. This announce
ment muft have ftartled Dr. Doyle and his brethren,
if they had hoped to efcape detection ; and, if any
thing was wanting to complete their difcomfiture, it
was furnimed by the mafterly way in which Dr.
Phillpotts expofed their blunders and mif-ftatements,
weaving together fuch a chain of condemnatory evi
dence as it would have been hopelefs to attempt to
break.

The next matter referred to is the proceeding of the
Council of Conftance againft John Hus, which Dr.
Phillpotts rightly ftigmatizes as a " cruel and treach
erous murder." And indeed it can be fairly called by

134 Cafe of John Hus fully conjldered ;

no lighter name. The ftory is well known. Having
been charged with holding the doctrines of Wicliffe,
Hus was cited, in 1414, to appear before the Council
of Conftance. Having obtained from the Emperor a
fafe-conduct to and from that city, he prefented him-
felf before the Council.

Vain was it for Dr. Murray to aflure the Committee
of the Commons that the fafe-conduct given to Hus
by the Emperor was nothing more than a travelling
fajjporty fuch as is commonly ufed on the Continent at
the prefent day. The terms of the document forbid
any fuch conftruction as this ; and the diftrefs of the
Emperor Sigifmund when he heard of the condem
nation of Hus, — a diftrefs which was only appeafed
by the aflurance that the decree of the Council was
fuperior to his own authority, — can only be reconciled
on the fuppofition that he believed that his honour had
been forfeited. The attempt alfo of Dr. Doyle to
mow that the city of Conftance was wholly indepen
dent of the Emperor, and that, confequently, he was
not anfwerable for the act of its magiftrates in burning
Hus, is a miferable piece of fhuffling — too pitiful,
indeed, to find place anywhere but in a caufe that was
already defperate. So far from the city being " free/'
in any fenfe, to exclude the authority of the Emperor,
Dr. Phillpotts mows, on the authority of Nauclerus,
a chronicler dear to Dr. Doyle himfelf, that the
circumftance of Conftance being fixed upon as the feat
of the Council gave great delight to the Emperor,
" becaufe it was a city Jubj eft to him" while Pope John

and Confutation ofDrs. Murray and Doyle. 1 3 5

XXIII. was correfpondingly depreffed at the feledtion ;
as well he might be, if he had the power of predicting
that the Council would decree that a General Council
was fuperior to the fucceflbr of S. Peter, while it
depofed one of the rival Popes, compelled the other
to refign, and elected a frefh Pope.

Asa further example of the accuracy of Dr. Doyle's
aflertion it may be remarked that, in the courfe of a
fermon preached before the Council by the Bifhop of
Lodi, the Emperor was fpecially invoked to " deftroy
all herefies and errors ; and, above all, this obftinate
heretic : " (Hus.) That this might only have been a
fpecimen of fomewhat fervid pulpit rhetoric it would
be pleating to believe, were it not for the fequel of the
fermon, when we find Hus delivered by the Council
to Sigifmund, while he in turn hands him over to
Louis, Elector of Bavaria, who in due courfe caufes him
to be burnt, much to the edification of the faithful,
and the terror of all unbelievers. Whether Rome
thinks it needful to keep faith with heretics it would
be wafte of time to inquire, as long as the Acts of the
Council of Conftance are acknowledged by that
Church, otherwife a ftartling commentary on her
practice might be collected from the writings of
Hofius, Simanca, and Albert Pighius.

The fate of Hus leads Dr. Phillpotts on naturally
to examine the doctrine of exclufive falvation in the
Church of Rome. And here he fays truly enough : —

" Even the claims of its fpiritual head to a right of inter
ference, whether dire& or indirect, in the temporal concerns

136 The Dottrine of Exclusive Salvation

of ftates (if they were univerfally acknowledged), would be
of far lefs pra&ical moment, than the doctrine which ex
cludes from falvation all thofe who dare to feparate them-
felves from the Roman Church."

That this was perceived by the Roman Catholic
prelates themfelves is plain from their endeavours to
foften the obnoxious tenet. But here, at leaft, their
fophiftry ferved them not.

" It ftands, " fays Dr. Phillpotts, " in the very front of
their whole fyftem ; nay, it makes a part of every other
dogma ; for all are commended to the acceptance of the
faithful under the awful fanction of an anathema if they be
rejedted."

Dr. Doyle having recriminated on the Church of
England, and afferted that me taught the fame exclu-
five doctrine in the i8th Article, an opportunity is
afforded to Dr. Phillpotts of vindicating and explaining
that Article. After quoting it,* he proceeds : —

" In other words, thofe are to be accurfed who prefume
to fay that the great work of redemption by Chrift was not
neceflary for the falvation of man ; but that men of any
religious perfuafion, if they live according to the law or feet
which they profefs, and to mere natural light, fhall be faved
thereby ; whereas Holy Scripture tells us that all who fhall
be faved, of whatever feet or perfuafion they may be, will

* " Article XVIII. Ofobtaining Salvation only by the Name
of Chrift. — They alfo are to be had accurfed that prefume
to fay that every man fhall be faved by the law or feel: which
he profefleth, fo that he be diligent to frame his life accord
ing to that law, and the light of nature. For Holy Scripture
doth fet out to us only the Name of Jefus Chrift, whereby
men muft be faved."

as taught by the Church of Rome. 137

be faved only by the Name of Jefus Chrift — only by reafon
of Him and His merits. That this is, in one fenfe, a
do&rine of exclufive falvation, I am quite ready to admit ;
but let us fee of what it is exclufive, — it is not of the fubje&s
of falvation, for it abfolutely excludes none ; but only of
means, or authors, of falvation. In fhort, it does no more
nor lefs than exclude all other Saviours than our Lord Jefus
Chrlfl. Here then the whole parallel between the Churches
of Rome and England, in refpecl: to the dogma of exclufive
falvation, as far as our Article is concerned, falls abfolutely
to nothing."

Whether members of the Roman Church, while
maintaining the doctrine of exclufive falvation, can
be fafely entrufted with a {hare of legiflative power
among a people the majority of whom me regards as
out of the pale of falvation, is a queftion about which
no fbber man will doubt. The marvel is that the
claim fhould ever have been ferioufly entertained.
As if it were not enough that Rome fhould have
pronounced the Englifh Church to be no true part
of the Church of Chrift, but abandoned to the
guidance of the devil in this world, and to eternal
perdition in the next, fhe muft alfo claim as a right to
legiflate for that Church which me denounces, and for
that State of which, if her allegiance to the Pope be
more than a name, fhe is a faithlefs member.

The pretenfions of the Roman Church are thus fet
forth by Dr. Doyle himfelf :*-

" * It is the worft ofherefy, and a virtual apoftafy from the
Chriftian religion to ajfert that the gates of hell have ever

* " Addrefs to Clergy of Carlow, Auguft the 28th, 1825."

138 Pojition of Englijh Churchmen

prevailed againft this Church — that is, that the pa/tors am
people who compofe ity have ever, at any period^ even for a fingle
hour, profejfed error' A fentence," fays Dr. Phillpotts, " by
which every national Church, every denomination of Chrif-
tians throughout the world, which differs from Rome in the
minuteft point of faith, is pronounced to be in a ftate of the
moft damnable herefy."

The members of the Englifh Church, then, in the
eyes of Rome, are in evil cafe ; nor are matters much
improved when the fpecious plea of " invincible
ignorance " is fet up on their behalf. For, although
Baptifm cleanfes original fin, and all aclual fin com
mitted before that holy Sacrament, yet every mortal
fin committed after Baptifm can only be remitted (ac
cording to the Church of Rome) in the facrament of
penance.

" Here then," fays Dr. Phillpotts, " is the amount of the
utmoft conceflion which can be made, even to thofe whofe
involuntary error, and invincible ignorance keep them out
of the pale of the Church of Rome. They will be faved —
if they do not commit any aclual fin. But if they fin,
for them there is no remiflion — the Blood of Chrift has
been fhed in vain — the Gofpel of Chrift has been preached
in vain. If they fin, they have no {hare in the common
blefling promifed to Chriftian finners. If they fin, they
have not ' an Advocate with the Father ' — c Jefus Chrift the
Righteous is not the Propitiation for their fins.' They have
fallen from grace given in Baptifm, and to them no ' place of
repentance ' is left, though they feek it with tears of anguifh,
and c groans which cannot be uttered.' Their c broken and
contrite hearts ' — the Church of Rome hath faid (and who
{hall dare to gainfay it ?) — 'their broken and contrite hearts,
O Lord, Thou A/// defpife.' "

according to the Roman Theory. 139

Dr. Phillpotts then proceeds to enumerate certain
cafes in which Rome delights to difplay her overbear
ing fpirit, commencing with the admonition of the
rubric to parents " not to truft their children to be in
any wife fuckled or nurfed by heretic women," down
to the refufal of Chriftian burial (in countries where
it may fafely be done) to heretic corpfes. But this is
not all.

"The fame odious fpirit," fays Dr. Phillpotts, " which
makes it a fubjecl: of grave precaution that herefy be not
fucked in with the nurfe's milk, and which violates the
decencies of our common nature in refufing the protection
even of a fecure grave to the bones of a deceafed Proteftant,
has intruded itfelf into the deareft connections of domeftic
life, and fought to make the marriage-bed a fcene of difcord
and polemic altercation."

Then follows a refcript of the Pope, publifhed in
1825, cc while the Committee of the Houfe of Com
mons was fondly catching the honeyed dew of peace
and brotherly love, as it trickled from the guilelefs
lips of Drs. Doyle, Murray, Kelly, and Magaurin ;"
which, if obeyed, would have the effect of introducing
diforder into every home where the hufband or wife
chanced to be a Roman Catholic.

With fuch terrible examples of the intolerance of
Rome before our eyes, it is hard to account for the
infatuation which could plead for the admiffion of its
children to a feat in the Legiflature. Dr. Phillpotts
brings the queftion to its legitimate iflue when he
fays : —

1 40 Appeal to Moderate Romanics.

" If thefe tenets be not eflential, let the authority, be il
what it may, which can declare what is or is not eflential,
renounce and difclaim them. If this be not done, no adequate
fecurity can be given to any Proteftant ftate againft tl
arrogant pretenfions, the rancorous malignity, of their Churcl
itfelf. If this be not done, let thofe among them (and thei
are many fuch) who cherim the feelings of Chriftian charitj
and refpect the rights of other Chriftians, either emancipat
themfelves from the bonds of religious tyranny, or candidl]
acknowledge that it is not the Crown, it is not the Heir to
the Crown, it is not the Houfe of Lords, it is not the people
of England — it is the Pope, it is the Church of Rome itfelf,
which bars the entrance of the Britim Senate, and condemns
them to a ftate of mortifying but neceflary exclufion."

Dr. Doyle next receives fevere chaftifement at the
hands of Dr. Phillpotts for the fhamelefs way in which
he contradicted himfelf in relation to Paftorini's pro
phecies, and the queftion of Roman Catholic Eman
cipation. That diftinguifhed prelate makes but a forry
figure, it muft be confefled, and it is hard to fay
whether he moft moves our laughter or contempt.
His fyftem of fcheming, fubterfuge, and evafion cul
minates in the ftatement, pronounced, it is to be
hoped, with gravity fuited to its fincerity, that, if ever
he took part in political difcuflions, // was with great
reluctance. If anything could have awakened the
confiding Committee of the Houfe of Commons to a
fenfe of the character and motives of the man with
whom they had to deal, it muft have been this perilous
afTertion. That I. K. L.* fhould defire to forget his

* The initials under which Dr. Doyle wrote — James
Kildare and Leighlin.

Eftlmate of Dr. Doyle. 1 4 1

fedition was reafonable enough ; but that any one
fhould believe that this political firebrand had been
dragged an unwilling victim into conflicts which his
peaceful foul abhorred, was as unlikely as that they
fhould learn to venerate the lying wonders of his
Church.

" Yet this," fays Dr. Phillpotts, in conclufion, " is Dr.
Doyle ! This is, or lately was, (for thefe glories are not
often very long-lived,) the idol of the liberal party in our
Englifh Houfe of Commons ! one whom ftatefmen have
not fcrupled to laud in good fet fentences as a paragon of
talent, and the very mirror of honefty ! In exhibiting him
in his real colours, in holding him forth in his own recorded
words and fentiments, to the indignation of every man, to
whom truth and plain dealing are not empty names, I have
performed a duty painful and difgufting to my own feelings ;
a duty, by the difcharge of which I may perhaps draw down
upon myfelf the ribaldry of Scotch critics, the revilings of
Irifh orators, the fneers of Englifh liberals, and the half-
vented rebukes of the friends of conciliation. Be it fo !
From all thefe cenfors I appeal to the unbiafled judgment
and honeft fympathy of the Britifh people ; and if my caufe
be as good, as my own confcience tells me it is, to that tri
bunal I fhall not appeal in vain."

142

CHAPTER X.

Roman Catholic Emancipation. Importance of the Queftion
Reafons for Penal Enactments againft Roman Catholics
An Enumeration of them. Their Harjhnefs. Ear Heft Aft
of Conceffion. How received by the Roman Catholics. Th
Petition 0/1789. Remarks upon it. Mr. Mitfortfs Mo
tion. Conduct of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox. The forme

favourable to Conceffion with adequate Security. Conduct of
Roman Catholics. Lord Fite-William. Hopes entertained
by them from his Appointment to Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland.
Hojiility of the King. Recall of Lord Fiti-William. Po
pular Excitement. The College of Maynooth founded. The
Union of Ireland with Great Britain. An Expectation that

further ConceJJions would be granted to the Roman Catholics.
Attitude of the King. Diffolution of Mr. Pitt's Mini/try.
Minijiers charged with having caufed the King's Affliction.
Mr. Pitt's Promife. Lord Grenville efpoufes the Caufe of
Roman Catholic Relief. The Opinion of the Country againft
it. Mr. Grattan. A further Grant to Maynooth. Mr.
Grattanjs Motion. The National Reprefentative Affembly
in Dublin fupprejjed by Government. Another Motion by
Mr. Grattan. Hopes of the Roman Catholics. Accejfionof
Mr. Canning and Lord Wellejley to their Party. A Motion

for the early Confederation of their Claims carried. The
Debate of the 25^ of February^ 1813. The Propofed Con
ceJJions ill received by the Roman Catholics. Letter of the
Roman Catholic Prelates affembled in Dublin. Faffing of
the Duke of Norfolk's Bill. Violence of the Roman Catholic
Board in Ireland. Mr. O'Connell. Motions in Parliament.
Excited State of Ireland. Sir Robert Inglis on the Danger
of further ConceJJions to the Roman Catholics. Further Mo
tions in Parliament. Supported by Lord Caftlereagh, and
oppofed by Mr. Peel. Earl Grey's Bill to relieve Roman
Catholics from taking the Declaratory Oaths. Death of Mr.
Grattan. Irreparable Lofs to the Roman Catholic Party.

Roman Catholic Emancipation. 143

Bill for Roman Catholic Relief carried in the Houfe of Com
mons. Thrown out in Houfe of Lords. Outrages and Famine
in Ireland. Mr. Canning's Bill for ConceJJion carried in the
Houfe of Commons^ but rejected by the Lords. Continuation
of Dlfturbances in Ireland. Further Motions In Parliament.
The Roman Catholic Affoclatlon In Ireland referred to In the
King's Speech. Mr. Goulburn's Bill for its SuppreJJlon.
Mr. Brougham's Defence of it. The Motion carried^ and
the Bill pajfed by both Houjes. Further Motions in Parlia
ment. The Declaration of the Duke of Tor k again/} the Roman
Catholics. Opinion of Lord Eldon. Strong Feeling in the
Country again/} further ConceJJion. Sir F. Burdett's Motion
in 1827.

R. PHILLPOTTS had now fairly em
barked in the Roman Catholic queftion; and
it was in February of the next year, 1827,
that he publifhed the firft of his celebrated
Letters to Mr. Canning on the propofed meafure of
relief. But, before confidering the part which he played
in a conteft the moft important of any that have agitated
the country fince the Revolution, it will be well to take
a general furvey of the political condition of the Roman
Catholics, and examine the various efforts made on
their behalf, terminating in the Relief Bill of 1829.
If it be pleaded that fuch a furvey forms no part of
the Life of Dr. Phillpotts, it muft be remembered
that this work is alfo a hiftory of his Times, and
that no fuch work would be complete without giving
fomething like a comprehenfive view of this momen
tous ftruggle.* The various ftages of the meafure are
fo little known to the majority of Englimmen, that,

* A fimilar mode of treatment will be adopted further on,
in reference to the " Oxford Movement."

1 44 Penal Enactments againft Romantfts.

even at the rifk of a certain tedioufnefs infeparable froi
an examination of details, it is believed that a fervi<
will be rendered by fhowing how the queftion of
Roman Catholic relief ftruggled on from fmall begin
nings till it aflumed the proportions of one of the moi
gigantic evils which it was ever the lot of the countr
to confront.

And here it may be faid, generally, that in evei
reign, except that of James II, fome freih feverity
been enacted againft the Roman Catholics. A thought
ful writer fupplies us with reafons for thefe acts
legiflation : — •

" The ftatutes againft Popery in England and Ireland were
the reftri&ions, not of a religious faith, but of a political
fa&ion, ena£ted not againft difiidents from the Church of
England, but againft rebellious partifans of the Houfe of
Stuart. The queftion was one, not of the Liturgy, but of
the fword. The Stuarts loft the day. They were exiled ;
and the foldiers whom they left behind were difabled by the
provifions of law from again ftirring up rebellion, and again
fhedding the blood of freemen in the caufe of tyrants and
naves."*

So numerous were thefe ftatutes that no lefs than
feventy pages are occupied in Burn's Ecclefiaftical Law
with an enumeration of them.

Popifhprieftswho mould officiate in Romifh churches
or chapels were declared guilty of felony, if foreigners,
and of high treafon, if natives. Rewards were payable
on the difcovery of popifh clergy — 50 /. for difcover-

* Croly : " Life of George IV," p. 476.

An Enumeration of them. 145

ing a bifhop, 2O/. for a prieft, and io/. for a popifh-
ufher. No Proteftant was allowed to marry a Papift.
No Papift could purchafe land, or take a leafe for more
than thirty-one years ; and if the profits of the land fo
leafed amounted to more than a certain fum, the pro
perty was to pafs to the firft Proteftant difcoverer.
No Papift could be in a line of entail, but the eftate
was to pafs on to the next Proteftant relation. No
Papift could hold any office, civil or military, or dwell
in certain fpecified towns, or vote at elections. The
wives of Papifts were to have an increafe of their join
ture on converfion. Two juftices were empowered to
compel any Papift, above eighteen years of age, to dif-
cover every particular which had come to his know
ledge refpecting popifh priefts, celebration of Mafs, or
popifh fchools, under penalty of imprifonment for a
year if he refufed. Nobody was allowed to hold pro
perty in truft for a Roman Catholic. In every cafe
growing out of the penal ftatutes the juries were to
be exclufively Proteftant. Papifts in towns were to
provide Proteftant watchmen, and were incapacitated
from voting at veftries. They were alfo incapable of
being called to the bar, and barrifters or folicitors mar
rying Papifts were confidered Papifts, and were liable
to all the confequent penalties. Perfons robbed by
privateers during war with a popifh prince were in
demnified by money levied upon Roman Catholics
only. Any prieft found guilty of celebrating a mar
riage between a Proteftant and a Roman Catholic was
to be hanged.

146 Earliejl A5ts of ConceJ/wn.

Such is an outline of the penal code to which a por
tion of our fellow-fubjects was liable. But, neceflary
as thefe enactments may have been, they were certainly
hardfhips and difqualifications which nothing but the
moft imperious neceflity could juftify. They were
devifed to meet a prefling evil ; and, as that evil pafled
away, moderate men began to feel that they might be
relaxed without danger to the State. It is true that
many of thefe A6ls had for a long time remained a
dead letter ; but they were ftill to be found in the fta-
tute book, and might be enforced, even at the rifk of
fowing the feeds of family difcord, and loofening the
very frame- work of fociety itfelf.

Among the earlieft Acts of legislative conceflion may
be ranked that of 1778, when a bill for relieving
Roman Catholics from the operation of many fevere
ftatutes was introduced, and pafled with little oppofi-
tion. But where a little is yielded, it is invariably
made a ftepping-ftone for further demands. This was
fpecially the cafe with the Roman Catholics ; and, in
the year 1 7 8 1 , an eminent member of that body made
no fcruple to fay* that " the boafted excellencies of
the Britifh Conftitution are nothing to me, who am
deprived of the common rights of humanity ; they
only ferve to make my condition more irkfome, and
to create a refllejs defire of change and revolutions"

In May, 1789, the Englifh Catholic Dijfenters (for

_ ^ _

* In a pamphlet entitled, " The State and Behaviour of
Englifti Catholics from the Reformation to the Year 1781."

Mr. Mitford's Motion. 147

that was the fomewhat doubtful title under which they
now figured) prefented a petition to the Houfe of
Commons, praying to be relieved from the difabilities
under which they laboured. The petition was drawn
up with great care and ingenuity. They acknow
ledged no infallibility in the Pope, and affected to pay
no great reverence to the decrees of councils. King
George was their fole lord and mafter, and no Pope
or council could depofe him. It was altogether fuch a
document as would drive the Wifemans and MacHales
of the prefent day to frenzy, and is not without its
inftruction, as fhowing the elafticity of the Roman
fyftem, in fpite of its vaunted unchangeablenefs, and
how well that Church knows how to relax or tighten
its pretenfions according to the temper of the times.
This petition was received with confiderable favour ;
and, early in the feflion of 1791, Mr. Mitford (after
wards Lord Redefdale) moved for leave to bring in a
bill "to relieve, upon condition, and under certain
reftrictions, perfbns called Protefting Catholic Dif-
fenters from certain penalties and difabilities to which
papifts, or perfons profeffing the popifti religion, are by
law fubjecT:." In the courfe of an able fpeech he com
mented with great feverity on the exifting laws again ft
Roman Catholics, and after enumerating the various
oaths of fupremacy which had from time to time been
devifed, he ftated that the relief which he mould pro-
pofe for the protefting Roman Catholics would be a
bill fimilar to that which had patted in Ireland for the
relief of the Roman Catholics fome years fince ; and,

148 Opinions of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox.

as no ill confequences had been found to refult from
it in a country where the Roman Catholics were fo
much more numerous, he trufted that the Houfe
would fee no impropriety in the proportion. The
motion was fupported by Mr. Pitt, who exprefled a
hope that the Houfe would be unanimous in receiving
the bill. He was followed by Mr. Fox, who thought,
however, that the meafure was too narrow in its views.
He wifhed to go much further, and eftablifh. complete
toleration. The bill was eventually carried through
the Houfe of Commons without a divifion. On the
fecond reading in the Houfe of Lords a debate enfued
upon the propriety of feveral claufes. The Arch-
bifhop of Canterbury, and the Bifhops of S. David's,
Peterborough, and Salifbury, gave the bill their fup-
port, and it was pafled on the 4th of June, a flight
variation having been made in the form of the oath.

And now that the Roman Catholics were relieved
from the feverity of penal ftatutes, it was determined
that an effort fhould be made to free them from poli
tical difabilities as well. The attempt originated in
Ireland in the early part of 1795, where afTemblies of
the moft influential of the Roman Catholics were held,
in which it was determined to addrefs the Throne for a
remiffion of political difqualifications, and a full parti
cipation in the rights of their fellow-fubjects. It was
well known that the Prime Minifter, Mr. Pitt, was
favourable to their demands, provided that fufficient
fecurities could be given ; but it was alfo known that
the King was moft determinately hoftile, and it was

Lord Fitz-William. 149

not thought that in the face of the Irifti legiflature,
compofed entirely of Proteftants, any material concef-
fions would be granted.* Ultimately, however, the
exifting laws were fo far relaxed as to permit Roman
Catholics to intermarry with Proteftants, to take ap
prentices, to keep fchools, and to plead at the bar,
together with fome letter privileges hitherto withheld
from them.

But, important as thefe relaxations were, they were
received with little favour. The Roman Catholics
had tafted enough of the fweets of liberty to make
them long for more. The ftudy of human nature
proves the truth of the French proverb, L'appetit
vient en mangeant; and nothing would now fatisfy them
but a deliverance from difqualifications of every kind.
It was at this juncture that Lord Fitz- William was
appointed Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland. From his
well-known inclination to moderate counfels, and the
favourable difpofition of the government which had
appointed him, large conceflions were not unreafon-
ably expected. It was believed that he was fpecially
charged to carry over to Ireland a final deliverance
from difqualifications of all kinds on religious grounds.
The Roman Catholics faw, therefore, that this was the
time to prefs their advantage, and Mr. Grattan was

: The unconquerable nature of the King's fcruples is
forcibly defcribed in his well-known fpeech : — " I can give
up my crown, and retire from power ; I can quit my palace,
and live in a cottage j I can lay my head on a block, and
lofe.my life : but I can not break my oath."

150 The College of May nooth founded.

put forward to advocate their claims. A Relief Bill
was already in courfe of preparation, when the Govern
ment, finding that the King would never give hij
confent to it, took alarm, and declared its hoftility to th<
meafure. Lord Fitz- William, who, it muft be confefled,
had mown but little tad in fo eafily allowing himfelf
to become the tool of the Irifh party, was recalled, and
Lord Camden was appointed as his fucceflbr. This
Jed to the moft ferious manifestations of difpleafure
both in the Irifh Parliament and out of doors. One
party was for impeaching Mr. Pitt, while the more
excitable vented their indignation in tumultuous meet
ings, which were only difperfed by the foldiery. Mean
while, however, a conceflion of another and more
perilous kind was granted to the Irifh Roman Catho
lics. Up to this time the ranks of the priefthood had
been recruited from foreign colleges ; but the French
Revolution had fwept moft of thefe feminaries away.
The Roman Catholics were now in an evil cafe, and
if Government had not fpeedily come to their aflift-
ance, their Church in Ireland muft have expired from
inanition. This was, therefore, thought to be a fa
vourable moment for founding an inftitution in Ireland
for the training of Roman Catholic youths for the
priefthood, and thus prevent their forming foreign
connections, involving themfelves in foreign relations,
and bringing home to their own country foreign af
fections. Eight thoufand pounds were, accordingly,
granted from the public money, in the year 1795, and
the college of May nooth was founded — an eftablifh-

Union of Ireland with Great Britain. 151

ment which from that day to the prefent has furnifhed
a ceafelefs ground of irritation and debate. The grant
was made, beyond queftion, in a liberal and concilia
tory fpirit ; but experience has mown that the college
has proved an entire and hopelefs failure.

And now the projected union of Ireland with Great
Britain fhared for a while the thoughts and occupied
the energies of politicians of every grade, jointly with
the meafure for Roman Catholic Relief. It was be
lieved that, when the Act of Union pafled, in July,
1800, immediate fteps would be taken by Govern
ment to releafe the Roman Catholics from their re
maining difabilities. As long as the two kingdoms
had diftinct legiflatures, it was impoflible to open the
avenues of Parliament and public offices to Roman
Catholics in Ireland, fince they outnumbered the Pro-
teftant population in the ratio of three to one. Such
a meafure would have had the inevitable effect of
eftablifhing a Roman Catholic Government and Church
in Ireland. But when one common legiflature was
eftablifhed for both countries, it was not thought that
the admiflion of a very fmall and uninfluential mino
rity of Roman Catholics into Parliament would exer-
cife any improper influence on the councils of the
nation. Many, therefore, of the leading Tory ftatef-
men were favourable to their admiflion, Mr. Pitt
among the number ; but the determined opposition
of the King rendered any fuch ftep for the prefent
impoflible. He was abfolutely inflexible, and was,
moreover, fully perfuaded that any further relaxation

152 Attitude of the King.

would involve a violation of his coronation oath. He
was fupported in his determination by the opinion of
the Chancellor Loughborough, who was, it is to be
feared, merely humouring the King's prejudices for
his own private ends; and the confequence was that
the King refufed to have the fubject mentioned in his
prefence any more. This led to a coldnefs between
the King and Mr. Pitt; and it was not long before the
adminiftration of the latter, which had been carried on
with unparalleled benefit to the country for feventeen
years, came to an end. To increafe the pain and per
plexity which were felt on all fides at this eventful time,
the minifters were charged with having caufed that
calamitous affliction under which the King laboured.
So acutely did Mr. Pitt feel the imputation, little as
he deferved it, that, on the King's reftoration to health,
he promifed that he would not again bring forward the
Roman Catholic queftion during his Majefty's life
time.

For the prefent, then, further conceflion was not to
be thought of. But its advocates, though repulfed,
were not daunted, and, like fkilful generals, gathered
up their forces for a frem attack. Lord Grenville had
efpoufed the caufe of Roman Catholic relief with great
warmth, and on the loth of May, 1805, moved the
order of the day in the Houfe of Lords to take into
confideration the petition of the Roman Catholics in
Ireland, prefented on the 25th of March, and, in a
fpeech of great power, advocated the removal of exift-
ing difabilities. Special importance attaches to the de-

Opinion of the Country. 153

bate which followed, as it was the firfl time that the
queftion had been brought forward fince the Union.
The Lords debated, until four o'clock in the morning,
whether or not the petition fhould be referred to a
committee, and then adjourned until Monday the ijth,
when, after fitting till fix o'clock on the following
morning, they rejedled the motion by 178 to 49. Mr.
Fox's motion in the Commons, on the prefentation of
a duplicate petition, met with a fimilar fate on the fol
lowing day, being rejected by a majority of 336 to
124. The voice of the country was plainly againft
making any change in the Constitution at a time when
the whole of Europe was convulfed, and many who
were otherwife favourable to the meafure gave their
vote againft it. The debate in the Commons was
chiefly remarkable for giving occafion to the debut of
a new member, Henry Grattan, who had with diffi
culty been perfuaded to fit in Parliament, and had,
through Lord Fitz- William's intereft, been returned as
member for Malton. His fpeech, which lafted for an
hour and a-half, elicited marks of very warm approval
even from Mr. Pitt, and placed him at once in the
front rank of parliamentary debaters. From this mo
ment to the end of his brilliant career he was the moft
zealous champion of Emancipation ; and, although
not permitted to fee his labours crowned with fuccefs,
it was to his untiring energy that the ultimate pafTing
of the meafure was chiefly due.

The year 1 807 was marked by the grant of an ad
ditional fum of 5000 /. to the college of Maynooth.

1 54 Mr. Graft arts Motion.

Petitions continued to be prefented to both Houfes of
Parliament; and, on the I3th of May, 1810, Mr.
Grattan brought forward a motion in the Houfe of
Commons for a committee to confider the Roman
Catholic claims. Seldom had the walls of S. Stephen's
echoed with fuch fervid eloquence. But though this
memorable fpeech led captive the judgment of even
fober men, and gave to the opponents of the meafure
a temporary check ; yet, the magnitude of the danger
attending further conceflion fpeedily re-aflerted its
power, and, after an adjourned debate, the motion
was loft by a majority of 104. On the 6th of June a
motion to the fame effect was made in the Houfe of
Peers by the Earl of Donoughmore, which was loft by
a majority of eighty-fix, the Lord Chancellor Eldon
having been its chief opponent.

Early in the following year ( 1 8 1 1 ) the Roman
Catholics again occupied a large mare of the atten
tion of Parliament — the firft of the Regency. Poli
tical agitators in Ireland had conceived the plan of
a National Reprefentative AfTembly, which was to
hold its fittings in Dublin, and, under pretence of
petitioning Parliament, levy money, and take into
its hands the general protection and management of
Roman Catholic interefts. The danger of fuch a pro
ceeding was too great to allow of delay, and the Irim
Government promptly checked the project by fending
a circular letter to the meriffs and chief magiftrates of
all the counties in Ireland, directing them to arreft,
under the Convention Act, all perfons who might in

Hopes of the Roman Catholics. 155

any way be concerned in promoting fuch an aflembly.
The remedy was fharp, but decifive, and led to an
animated debate in the Englifh Parliament, Mr. Wel-
lefley Pole, Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ire
land, appearing in his place in the Houfe of Commons
to give an account of his conduct ; but there were no
refults, beyond a difplay of irritated feelings. It was
of this benefit, however, to the Roman Catholics, that
it kept their claims frefh before men's minds, and
helped to increafe the growing conviction that further
conceflions were inevitable. On the 31 ft of May, in
the fame year, Mr. Grattan repeated his motion in
the Houfe of Commons on behalf of the Roman Ca
tholics, and this time with fomewhat better fuccefs, for
the majority againft the motion had now decreafed to
fixty-three. On the i8th of June a fimilar motion was
alfo made in the Houfe of Lords by the Earl of
Donoughmore. The debate was chiefly remarkable for
a fpeech by the Bifhop of Norwich, Dr. Bathurft, in
favour of the Roman Catholic claims ; the motion,
however, was loft by a majority of fifty-nine, being
twenty-feven lefs than upon the former occaiion. In pro
portion as the majorities againft thefe annual motions
decreafed, fo did the hopes of the Roman Catholics rife.
They felt that the conteft might be prolonged, but that
vi&ory was fecure ; and thus, while noify agitators were
doing their work out of doors, Parliament was inun
dated with petitions from all quarters, not a few of
them coming from Proteftant fources. On the 2ift
of April, 1812, Lord Donoughmore renewed his mo-

156 Motions and Refults in

tion, and, in the long debate which followed, every
argument which had been previoufly ufed was again
brought forward, decked out with the choiceft orna
ments of oratory. It was a fubject the charm of
which feemed to make fpeakers infenfible to wearinefs.
But the hopes of the Roman Catholics were not as
yet to be realized, for the government at this time
was efTentially a <c no-popery" adminiftration, and the
motion was loft by a majority of feventy-two. A
fimilar motion was made by Mr. Grattan in the Houfe
of Commons on April the 23 rd, and was loft by a ma
jority of eighty -five. The third memorable defeat
which the Roman Catholic claims, fo pertinacioufly
urged, had fuffered in Parliament. Undaunted by
thefe failures, and confident that the fears of their op
ponents would one day grant what their better judg
ment withheld, the favourers of the meafure rofe,
Antasus-like, from their overthrow, and next time with
Mr. Canning and Lord Wellefley at their head.

On the 22nd of June, 1812, Mr. Canning moved a
refolution, pledging the Houfe to an early confideration,
in the next feflion, of the Roman Catholic claims, with
a view to their final and conciliatory adjuftment. In
the debate which followed, the motion was carried by
the decifive majority of 235 to 106. In the Houfe
of Lords, the ftronghold of the Anti-Catholic party,
the majority againft the motion was only one. Seldom
has any divifion mown fuch an extraordinary balance
of opinion in that Houfe. The Minifters were not
agreed among themfelves, for it had been underftood

both Houfes of Parliament. 157

for fome years that this fhould be left an open quef-
tion. The Bench of Bifhops itfelf was divided; and
of the five Royal Dukes three voted on one fide and
two on the other.

And now the Roman Catholics had good reafon to
congratulate themfelves upon the improved afpect of
their fortunes, and to predict the hour of victory. But
feventeen years of reftlefs agitation were to intervene.

On February 25, 1813, Mr. Grattan, emboldened
by the fuccefs of the previous year, renewed his annual
motion for a committee on the claims of the Roman
Catholics. The debate which followed continued
during four days, fo exhauftlefs did the fubject pro-
mife to be ; and fome idea of its prolixity may be
formed from the fact that its printed report is the
fize of an ordinary volume. At its clofe there was
a majority of forty in favour of the motion ; a great
falling off as compared with the majority of the pre
ceding year, and attributable to the reactionary alarm
which had fet in throughout the country at the mag
nitude of Roman Catholic pretenfions.

In order to occupy the ground which had already
been gained by Mr. Canning, Mr. Grattan, on March
the 9th, moved the order of the day for a committee
of the whole Houfe on the Roman Catholic queftion.
He then propofed a refolution that it is highly ad-
vifable to provide for the removal of the civil and
military difqualifications under which his Majefty's
Roman Catholic fubjects labour, with fuch exceptions,
and under fuch regulations, as fhould be found necef-

158 Letter of the Roman Catholic

fary. On a divifion of the Houfe there was a majority
of fixty-feven in favour of the motion.

On April the joth Mr. Grattan introduced his bill
and moved that it mould be read a firft time and
printed, which was agreed to. On May the ijth the
bill was read a fecond time, after a ftout oppofition.
It was confidered in committee on May the 24th, and
after a powerful fpeech againft the meafure by the
Speaker, the Right Honourable Charles Abbott, it
was rejected by a narrow majority of four. But the
hopes of the Roman Catholics had now rifen fo high
that even the meafure of conceflion which was
propofed altogether failed to excite their gratitude,
or indeed to meet their approval. This is clearly
mown from the following letter of the Roman
Catholic Prelates, aflembled in Dublin, to the Clergy
and Laity of the Roman Catholic Churches in
Ireland : —

" Reverend Brothers — Beloved Children — Peace be with
you. Solicitude for the fpiritual intereft of our beloved
flocks, obliges us once more to fufpend the exercife of our
other paftoral duties, in order to deliberate, in common, upon
the prefent pofture of our religious concerns.

" We haften to declare to you the lively feelings of grati
tude excited in our breafts by the gracious condefcenfion of
the Legiflature, in taking into its favourable confideration
the difabilities which ftill affect the Catholic body. With
thefe feelings deeply and indelibly imprefled upon our hearts,
it is with the utmoft diftrefs of mind that we are compelled,
by a fenfe of duty, to diflent (in fome points connected with
our emancipation) from the opinions of thofe virtuous and
enlightened ftatefmen, who have fo long and fo ably advo
cated the caufe of Catholic freedom.

Prelates ajfembled in Dublin. 159

" Probably from a want of fufficient information, but un-
queftionably from the moft upright motives, they have
propofed to the Legiflature the adoption of certain arrange
ments refpe&ing our Ecclefiaftical difcipline, and particularly
refpe&ing the exercife of epifcopal functions, to which it
would be impoffible for us to aflent, without incurring the
guilt of fchifm, inafmuch as they might, if carried into efFe&,
invade the fpiritual jurifdiclion of our Supreme Paftor, and
alter an important point of our difcipline, for which alter
ation his concurrence would, upon Catholic principles, be
indifpenfably neceflary.

" When the quarter is confidered from whence the claufes
have proceeded, it might perhaps be imagined, were we to
continue filent, that they had our unqualified approbation.
On this account we deem it a duty which we owe to you,
to our country, and to God, to declare, in the moft public
manner, * that they have not, and that in their prefent fhape
they never can have, our concurrence.' As, however, we
have, upon all occafions, inculcated the duty of loyalty to
our moft gracious Sovereign, (the fecuring whereof is the
profefled objecl: of the propofed ecclefiaftical arrangements,)
fo we would be always defirous to give you the moft con
vincing proofs that we are ready, in the moft exemplary
manner, to pra&ife it ourfelves. We have fworn to pre
fer ve inviolate the allegiance which every fubjecl: owes to
his Sovereign — we are not accufed of having violated our
oaths.

" Should any other oath, not adverfe to our religious
principles, be yet devifed, which could remove even the
unfounded apprehenfions of any part of our countrymen,
we would willingly take it. We owe it to our God to be free
from difloyalty. We owe it to our countrymen to endeavour,
at leaft, to be free from fufpicion.

" Upon thefe grounds, Reverend Brothers, Beloved Chil
dren, we announce to you the following refolutions, which,
after invoking the light and afliftance of God, we have
unanimoufly adopted, viz : —

160 Refolutions of the affembled Prelates.

" i. That having ferioufly examined a copy of the Bill,
lately brought into Parliament, purporting to provide for the
removal of the civil and military difqualifications under
which his Majefty's Roman Catholic fubjefts labour, we
feel ourfelves bound to declare that certain ecclefiaftical
claufes or fecurities therein contained are utterly incom
patible with the difcipline of the Roman Church, and with
the free exercife of our religion.

" 2. That we cannot, without incurring the heavy guilt of
fchifm, accede to fuch regulations ; nor can we diflemble
our difmay and confternation at the confequences which fuch
regulations, if enforced, muft neceflarily produce.

" 3. That we would, with the utmoft willingnefs, fwear,
(mould the Legiflature require us to do fo,) that we never
will concur in the appointment or confecration of any
Bifhop, whom we do not confcientioufly believe to be of
unimpeachable loyalty and peaceable conduct ; and further,
4 that we have not, and that we will not have, any corref-
pondence or communication with the Chief Paftor of our
Church, or with any perfon authorized to aft in his name
for the purpofe of overthrowing or difturbing the Proteftant
Government, or the Proteftant Church of Great Britain
and Ireland, or the Proteftant Church of Scotland, as by law
eftablimed.' Reverend Brothers, Beloved Children, the
Grace of our Lord Jefus Chrift, and the Communion of the
Holy Ghoft be with you all, Amen.

" Dublin, May 26, 1813."

(Here follow the Signatures.)

In fpite, however, of the rejection of Mr. Grattan's
motion, the fefllon of this year did not pafs away with
out a confiderably increafed meafure of relief being
granted to the Roman Catholics. A bill was brought
forward in the Lords by the Duke of Norfolk, and
fubfequently pafled into law, which provided that

Mr. O'Connell. 161

Roman Catholics holding any civil or military office
granted to them in Ireland under the A6t 33, George
III, c. 21, who fhould have taken the oaths prefcribed,
fhould not be liable in England, in the navy, or in
Jerfey and Guernfey, to any of the penalties of 25
Charles II, c. 2, or to any penalties for not taking tefts ;
and that any Roman Catholic having taken thofe oaths,
and having received in Ireland a commifTion in the
army, fhould not, on receiving a higher commiflion in
Great Britain, be liable to any of the faid penalties.

In the following year, 1814, the proceedings of
the Roman Catholic board in Ireland were fo violent
and menacing, that the Lord- Lieutenant, with the
advice of the Privy Council, ifTued a proclamation,
declaring it contrary to law. This led to a monfter
meeting of Roman Catholics in Dublin, under the
presidency of the Hon. Thomas Ffrench, at which
Mr. O'Connell diftinguifhed himfelf by more than his
uftial fluency of invective. For a time the violence
difplayed by political agitators in Ireland occafioned
ferious injury to the caufe of Roman Catholic relief,
and promifed to retard for many years the fulfilment
of hopes fo fondly cherifhed and fo warmly urged.
Once more, therefore, it was determined to have re-
courfe to more conftitutional meafures, and on May
n, 1815, a petition was prefented to the Houfe of
Commons by Sir Henry Parnell, on behalf of the
Roman Catholics of Ireland, praying it " to grant to
them the redrefs of the oppreflive grievances of which
they fo juftly complain ; and to reftore to them the

M

1 6 2 Sir Robert Inglis* Letter to Lord Sidmouth.

full and unreftridled enjoyment of the rank of free
fubjects of the empire."

On the joth of the fame month a long debate en-
fued, in which all the former ground was traverfed
afrefh by the various fpeakers, and in which Mr.
Grattan mone with even more than his wonted bril
liance. The motion, however, was loft by a majority
of eighty-one ; and a fimilar motion made by Lord
Donoughmore in the Houfe of Lords, on June the
8th, was rejected by a majority of twenty- fix.

Meanwhile the agitation in Ireland continued un
abated, and this, combined with a confederacy in crime
which manifefted itfelf in a fyftematic oppofition to
all laws and municipal inftitutions, fufficed to keep
the country in a ftate of the greateft uneafinefs and
alarm. The danger of further conceflions to the
Roman Catholics is well mown in a letter written about
this period by Mr. (afterwards Sir Robert Harry)
Inglis to Lord Sidmouth.

" Nothing," he fays, " that I have yet feen or heard in
Ireland has weakened my convi&ion that it is neceflary to
flop fhort of any further conceflion of political power to the
Roman Catholic body. If we could be morally certain that
unconditional fubmiflion to their prefent demands would en-
fure to us the permanent peace and union of all clafles, we
might, perhaps, admit the anomalies of the meafure ; but
every new conceflion has furnifhed only the difpoiition and
the means to extort more. * Afk where Js the North, at
York, it's on the Tweed ;' and the North will thus»recede
from us « till all be theirs beneath the Ar6Hc fky.J Catholic
emancipation will be followed by the abolition of the tithes,
the ere&ion of a Roman Catholic eftablifhment, or the

Further Motions in Parliament. 163

reparation of the two countries as fucceffive objects of popu
lar excitement ; and O'Connell and O 'Gorman, who, we
are told, would completely lofe their confequence by the
fuccefs of their own prefent efforts, would quickly find in any
one or all of thefe, or fome other of the c thirty thoufand
grievances,' fome moft animating fubftitute for the war-cry
which they now raife."

The Parliamentary tranfactions of 1 8 1 6, in reference
to the Roman Catholic claims, were opened, on April
the 26th, by a petition being prefented to the Houfe
of Commons by Sir Henry Parnell, and the efforts were
continued to the clofe of the feffion. On the I5th and
2 1 ft of May petitions were alfo prefented ; and upon the
laft occafion Mr. Grattan moved that the Houfe mould
take into its confideration the ftate of the laws affecting
Roman Catholics, with a view to a final and concilia
tory adjuftment. It deferves to be recorded that upon
this occafion the motion was fupported by Lord
Caftlereagh, and oppofed by Mr. Peel, Secretary for
Ireland. It was loft by a majority of thirty-one. On
the joth of May the queftion was revived by Sir Henry
Parnell, and again alfo on the 6th of June — fo deter
mined were the Roman Catholics to force their claims
upon the nation. In the Houfe of Lords the fubject
of Roman Catholic relief was taken into confideration
on June the 21 ft — the chief feature of the debate being
the fpeech of the "liberal'1 Bifhop of Norwich (Dr.
Bathurft) in favour of the motion. It was rejected,
however, by a majority of four. And here it may
not be out of place to notice the fact that this great
queftion, involving a change in the conftitution of the

1 64 Earl Grey's Bill.

country, was fcarcely ever brought forward till near
the clofe of the feflion, when, according to the very
advocates of relief, it was too late to take any fteps in
the matter. The queftion was again revived May
the 9th, 1817, by Mr. Grattan unfuccefsfully moving
the adoption of the refolution of 1 8 13. It was rejected
by a majority of twenty-four ; and on May the i6th
a fimilar motion was negatived in the Houfe of Lords
by a majority of fifty-two.

The year 1818 was fignalifed by a refpite from
Parliamentary debates on this interminable fubject; but
on May the jrd, 1819, Mr. Grattan again prefled it
on the attention of the Houfe of Commons, and in a
very full Houfe there was a narrow majority of two
againft his motion. In the Houfe of Lords, on May
the iyth, a fimilar motion was rejected by a majority
of forty-one.

On the 25th of the fame month Earl Grey intro
duced a bill to relieve Roman Catholics from taking
the declaratory oaths againft Tranfubftantiation and
the Invocation of Saints.* The bill was read a firft
time, but on the fecond reading (June the loth) there
was a majority againft it of fifty-nine.

But before the Roman Catholic caufe could again
be brought before Parliament, its chief fupport was no
more. Mr. Grattan had, indeed, come to London to
attend the feflion of Parliament ; but his health was
broken, and he never again raifed his voice in public

* For an account of this, fee " Letter to Earl Grey,"
page 28.

Death of Mr. Graft an. 165

in defence of that queftion which had engrofled the
beft of his time and talents. His laft thoughts, how
ever, were given to his darling fcheme, and his dying
words were thofe of warning to the Roman Catholics,
entreating them to abftain from endeavouring to turn
the diflenfions of the times to their own profit, but
quietly to wait for the victory which was fure to come.
His lofs in the Houfe of Commons was irreparable.
The rival of Pitt, Fox, and Sheridan, with a force of
eloquence and a power of illuftration which were all
his own, upon whom fhould his mantle fall ?

In the early part of the feffion of 1 821 the claims of
the Roman Catholics were again brought before both
Houfes of Parliament. On February the 28th, Mr.
Plunkett moved in the Commons that a Committee
of the whole Houfe fhould confider the exifting laws
as affecting the Roman Catholics, and inquire whether
it would be expedient to alter or modify them. The
oppofition was led upon this occafion by Mr. Peel,
whofe hoftility to further conceflion was mod ener
getic ; but the motion was carried by a majority of
fix, in a very full Houfe. Leave was then given to
bring in a bill. This was done on the yth of March,
and the fecond reading was fixed for the i6th of the
fame month. Among thofe who fpolce in favour of
the meafure were Mr. Wilberforce, Sir James Macin-
toih, and Mr. Canning. Upon a divifion there was
a majority of eleven for the fecond reading of the
bill ; and on the 2nd of April, on the queftion being
put for the third reading, it was carried by a majority

1 66 Relief BUI thrown out in Houfe of Lords.

of nineteen. Thus, then, the efforts of the Roman
Catholics were crowned with partial fuccefs.

The bill was carried up to the Houfe of Lords on
the jrd of April, and was read a firft time without
any debate. Meanwhile numerous petitions were pre-
fented againil it ; and it is worthy of remark, as evi
dencing the fpirit of aggreflion which had at this time
taken porTefTion of the Roman Catholics, that they
themfelves were among the number of thefe petitioners,
exprefling very ftrong difapprobation at the propofed
regulations which were intended as fecurities ; fo
quickly had the fpirit of the encyclical letter of the
Irifh Bifhops, already quoted, leavened the entire
community.

The fecond reading was fixed for the 1 6th of the fame
month, when, after a long and wearifome debate, the
motion was negatived by a majority of thirty-nine.
Upon this occafion, as on all others, Lord Eldon
mowed himfelf an inflexible opponent of the meafure,
and the Duke of York exprefled fentiments, which, as
coming from the heir-prefumptive to the Crown, could
not fail to exercife a depreffing influence upon the hopes
of the Roman Catholic party. Lord Liverpool, alfo,
continued his opposition, declaring that there were not
three lines in the bill to which he could agree.

The year 1822 was fignalifed by riotous proceed
ings of a more than ordinary atrocious character, and
by a famine, in Ireland. This, however, did not at
all prevent a renewal of the difcuflion of Roman
Catholic claims, though they were not urged this year

Outrages and Famine in Ireland. 167

under the comprehenfive form of Catholic Emancipa
tion. Mr. Canning had now taken Mr. Grattan's
place as the advocate of entire conceflion ; but for the
prefent he contented himfelf with moving, on the joth
of April, for leave to bring in a bill to relieve Roman
Catholic Peers from the difabilities impofed on them
by the Act of joth Charles II, with regard to the
right of fitting and voting in the Houfe of Lords.
This was a fkilful way of introducing the thin end of
the wedge, and the hopes of the Roman Catholics not
a little revived when the motion was carried by a ma
jority of five. The fecond reading of the bill took
place on the loth of May, when Mr. Peel continued
his oppofition with unabated force and eloquence, but
without effect, for it was carried by a majority of
twelve, and no difcuflion or divifion took place on the
third reading. But, yielding as the Commons had
now become, the Peers were not infenfible of the im
pending danger ; the bill was thrown out in the Houfe
of Lords, on its fecond reading, by a majority of
forty-two.

Diflurbances and outrages continued in Ireland
during the year 1823, and the ftate of that country
had now become a fource of ceafelefs difquiet to Eng-
lifh legiflators. It was the one problem which feemed
capable of no folution. So ferious was the afpect of
affairs, that many of the more moderate of the Roman
Catholics were for poftponing all further confederation
of their claims ; but the voices of the violent party
prevailed, as they moftly do prevail in troublous times,

1 68 Further Motions in Parliament.

and the fubject was again brought before the Houfe
of Commons on the iyth of April. It was upon this
occafion that Sir Francis Burdett declared his intention
of withdrawing from all further confideration of the
queftion, ftigmatifing the annual motion as a farce.
A violent difcuflion then took place, in confequence
of the alleged defection of Mr. Canning from the
caufe. That right honourable gentleman defended
himfelf with great warmth, and the debate arTumed all
the appearance of a perfonal quarrel. Nothing refulted
beyond this difplay of bitternefs, and the queftion was
allowed to drop. Other motions were made during
the feffion, varying the nature of the Roman Catholic
claims, and calculated to bewilder their opponents
from their very variety ; but no meafure was parted.

The ftate of Ireland had greatly improved as the
fpring of 1824 advanced, and it was felt that the
opportunity was favourable for renewing the confide
ration of Roman Catholic relief. Two bills were
introduced into the Houfe of Peers by Lord Lanf-
downe for abolifhing fome of the difabilities of the
Englifh Roman Catholics. One bill conferred on
them the elective franchife, and the other admitted
them to act as magiftrates, and hold certain fubordinate
offices, particularly in the revenue. 'Both bills, how
ever, were rejected.

The Aflbciation in Ireland already referred to,*
which levied money under colour of protecting Roman

* See page 154.

Roman Catholic Affectation in Ireland. 169

Catholic interefts, was now felt to be an infufferable
evil, and to be totally oppofed to the fpirit of the
Conftitution. The King's fpeech at the opening of
Parliament, on the jrd of February, 1 825, referred to
its illegal proceedings, and called upon the Houfes to
confider the means of applying a remedy. On the
loth of the fame month Mr. Goulburn moved for
leave to bring in a bill to amend the Acts relating to
unlawful focieties in Ireland. The debate which fol
lowed was keen and fierce, and lafted over four nights.
The motion was carried by a decifive majority of 155.
Meanwhile, the Roman Catholics began to feel that
they had gone too far, that the patience of the nation
was well-nigh exhaufted, and that they ran the moft
imminent rifk of feeing the hopes of years altogether
extinguifhed. On the iyth of February, therefore,
Mr. Brougham appeared in the Houfe of Commons
as their advocate, and prefented a petition fetting forth
their grievances in language the moft fpecious, and
praying that the Houfe would adopt no meafure againft
the Catholic AfTociation, or againft any portion of the
Catholic people of Ireland, without firft affording to
the petitioners a full opportunity of vindicating their
principles and conduct at the bar of the Houfe, and
of being heard, if necefTary, as well by witnefTes as by
their counfel.

On the fame night Mr. Brougham moved that the
Roman Catholic Aflbciation fliould be heard, by them-
felves or their counfel, at the bar of the Houfe, and
after a marp debate, in the courfe of which Mr. Peel

1 70 Mr. Goulburrfs Bill paffed both Houfes.

made a brilliant fpeech againft the motion, it was re-
jedted by a majority of 133.

Mr. Goulburn's bill was read a fecond time on the 2 1 ft
of February, and a third time on the 25th. It was then
carried up to the Houfe of Lords, where it was read
a third time and paffed on the 7th of March, and on
the pth received the Royal affent. The A61 was to
commence ten days after it pafled, and was to continue
two years in force. The Roman Catholic Aflbciation,
feeing that refiftance was hopelefs, expired without a
ftruggle ; only, however, to revive again with increafed
power of vitality and mifchief.

And now the thoughts of the Roman Catholic
party were turned towards Mr. Canning. His popu
larity was unbounded, his feelings were known, and the
moft extravagant ideas were formed of what might be
effected by his all-powerful fupport. On the ift of
March (fo fhort was the repofe given to the Houfe of
Commons) a petition to examine Roman Catholic
claims was prefented by Sir Francis Burdett, who
feems to have reconfidered his determination to retire
altogether* from a conteft which was deftined to
afford a perpetual outlet for party feeling. Mr.
Canning fpoke in favour of it, as well as Mr. Plunkett
and Mr. Brougham. The motion was ftoutly oppofed
by Mr. Peel ; but it was carried by a majority of
thirteen. On the 23rd of March a bill was brought in
and read the firft time. A long and animated debate

* See page 168.

Declaration of the Duke of York. 171

enfued, and it was ultimately read a third time and
parted on the i oth of May, by a majority of twenty-one.

Previoufly to the reading of this bill in the Houfe
of Lords, a moft important event had occurred — the
declaration by the Duke of York againft further con-
ceflions to the Roman Catholics. It would be diffi
cult to defcribe the effect of his fpeech, and the new
courage it gave to the Anti-Catholic party. Thou-
fands of copies of it were printed and circulated
throughout the country. It was the moft decifive
check that the queftion had yet fuftained.

Whatever therefore the fate of the Bill might be in
the Houfe of Lords, it was confidently believed that it
never would receive the Royal aflent. Truly enough did
Lord Eldon fay, that " if the fame attention had been
paid by the people to this concern between Popery and
Proteftantifm, in any early ftage of the bufinefs, all had
been well."

But fevere as was the check which the Roman
Catholic party had now received, they determined to
prefs the matter on without delay. The bill was,
therefore, carried up to the Houfe of Lords on the
nth of May, and, after a very long and tedious
debate, in which all previous arguments were repeated
with as much relifh as if they were the moft brilliant
novelties, it was thrown out by a majority of forty-
eight. During the feflion of 1826 the queftion of
Roman Catholic Emancipation was not for mallypre fled
upon the notice of Parliament. The recent vote in
the Houfe of Lords, coupled with the ftrong Proteft-

172 Sir F. BurJett's Motion.

ant readlion which had fet in throughout the country,
muft have been enough to convince its moft enthufi-
aftic advocates of the utter hopeleflhefs of obtaining
any further conceffions at prefent, either from the hopes
or the fears of the nation. Left Roman Catholi<
claims, however, mould be allowed altogether to fad<
away, they were afllduoufly kept before public notice b]
means of numerous petitions addrerTed to both Houfe
of Parliament. The Roman Catholic AfTociation alfb
ftill held its meetings, the laws againft it never having
been put into force, and continued to pour forth an un
interrupted ftream of {lander and fedition.

Early in the year 1827 the Roman Catholics were
determined to improve their laft victory in the Houfe
of Commons, and, on the 5th of March, Sir Francis
Burdett moved, " That this Houfe is deeply imprefled
with the neceflity of taking into immediate confide-
ration the laws inflicting penalties on his Majefty's
Roman Catholic fubjects, with the view of removing
them." After a moft animated debate, in which all the
leading ftatefmen of the day took part, the motion
was loft by a majority of four, the numbers being, for
the motion, 272 ; againft it, 276. Thus, then, the
queftion feemed as far from fettlement as ever.

'73

CHAPTER XI.

Dr. Phillpotts* Flrjl Letter to Mr. Canning. His Induce
ment for entering upon the Roman Catholic ®)ueftion.
Securities a Part of every Roman Catholic Relief Bill.
Mr. Canning hlmfelf an Advocate for them. Gradual
Departure from Original Principles. The Menacing Atti
tude of the Roman Catholics. An Anecdote in Illuftration of
Mr. Canning' 's RetroceJJlon. The Bill of l%2$ confidered.
Its Securities compared with thofe 0/^1813. Its Inferiority
to Previous Bills. ExceJJive Deference fljown to Roman
Catholics. Infolence of the Irljh Roman Catholic AJficiation.
No Voice allowed to the Sovereign in the Appointment of
Roman Catholic Bljhops. A Board of CommlJJioners propofed
to certify the King of the Loyalty of the Bijhops-eletf. Com-
pofttlon of the Board ridiculed by Dr. Phlllpotts. The
propofed Way of dealing with Bulls and other Inftruments
from Rome. Summary of the Bill. Mr. Canning's Conduct
defcribed.

|T was at this ftage of the Roman Catholic
queftion, that Dr. Phillpotts publifhed
his Letters to Mr. Canning, the firft
being dated the 2jrd of February,* and
the fecond, the yth of May, 1827. Among the
many remarkable publications which iflued from the

* " A Letter to the Right Honourable George Canning on
the Bill of 1825, for removing the Difqualifications of his
Majefty's Roman Catholic Subje6b, and on his Speech in
fupport of the fame, by the Reverend Henry Phillpotts,
D.D., Reaor of Stanhope/'

1 74 Dr. Phillpotts' Letters to Mr. Canning,

prefs, during this eventful controverfy, none received,
or deferved, more attention than thefe brilliant letters.
It will be neceflary, therefore, to examine them at
fome length.

Dr. Phillpotts ftates, at the outfet, that his induce
ment for entering upon a difcufTion of the Roman
Catholic claims was to vindicate certain doctrines of
the Englifh Church from the grofs mifconception
and mifreprefentations to which they had been fub-
jecled by the unfcrupulous arts of Roman controver-
fialifts. The theological and political afpeds of the
queftion were by no means infeparable ; but the two
had become fo clofely interwoven that it was hardly
pofTible to keep them apart. Mr. Canning, in deal
ing with the political fide of the cafe, had found him-
felf irrefiftibly drawn into a difcuflion of the theo
logical. This afforded to Dr. Phillpotts the oppor
tunity of putting forth one of the moft fplendid
treatifes on the bearings of the Roman Catholic quef
tion which ever ifTued from the prefs.

He proceeds in the firft place to {how that a fyftem
of Securities had formed part of every plan of Roman
Catholic relief, from the time of Mr. Pitt in 1799,
down to 1813, and that politicians of all fhades of
opinion, including Mr. Canning himfelf, had united in
thinking it undefirable to make conceflions to the
Roman Catholics without afking from them in turn
the obfervance of certain conditions which were
deemed indifpenfable to the welfare of the State. This
part of the fubject deferves efpecial attention, as it was

and his Reafons for writing them. 175

afterwards endeavoured to be fhown that Dr. Phill-
potts had, for the moft unworthy motives, feen fit to
change his opinions on the queftion of fecurities. He
thus fpeaks upon the matter : —

" This, Sir, was the epoch of the moft fecure and
honoured ftate of our Proteftant eftablifhments fmce the
time when they were firft afiailed by the claims of the
Roman Catholics. No ftatefman, on either fide of either
Houfe of Parliament, ventured then to recommend the un
qualified conceffion of thofe claims ; or the conceflion of
them at all, without requiring real, effectual, and adequate
fecurities. But from this our high and palmy ftate the
hopes of the Proteftants were fpon doomed rapidly to de
cline. The advocates of conceflion, though ftill loud and
ardent in their profeflions of a wifh for mutual fatisfa&ion
and fecurity, began to adopt a loofer phrafeology ; inftead of
precife pledges, we now had, from moft of them, only vague
unmeaning generalities ; even the tone of juft indignation
againft the treachery or waywardnefs of the Irifh Roman
Catholics themfelves, began to give way before 'candid
allowances,' and we foon heard little elfe but lamentations
over * the difappointment of a nation's hopes ; ' with very
fmall confideration of the caufes to which that difappoint
ment was mainly to be afcribed. In fhort, they were but
too apparently preparing to flide into a totally different line
of fentiment and corAhicV

Dr. Phillpotts next refers to Mr. Canning's aban
donment of his earlier principles on the queftion of
Roman Catholic relief, and fpeaks of the peril of
making conceflions at a time of popular excitement,
and under the preflure of intimidation. The attitude
of the Roman Catholics themfelves is very happily
defcribed as follows : —

176 Menacing Attitude of Roman Catholics.

".It fhould feem, that, in the judgment of fome of our
ftatefmen, a very peculiar principle of political calculation
applies to this fubjecl:, by which the neceflity of precaution
is found to be in an inverfe ratio to the magnitude of the
danger. Not many years ago, a meek and imploring fuitor
was not to be admitted into the outer court of the temple,
without firft demanding from him ample fecurities for his
good bearing j but, now, every barrier may be fafely broken
down — nay, every obftru&ion and inconvenience muft be
carefully fwept away, in order that the armed ruffian, with
defiance on his front, and menace on his tongue, may find
a free and unencumbered paflage to the very fan&uary of
our laws and our religion."

Mr. Canning's retroceflion, in prefence of the men
aces of the Irifh Roman Catholic party, headed by
O'Connell, is humoroufly illuftrated by the following
ftory : — A celebrated wit, the beft fcholar of his
day both at Eton and Oxford — a firft- rate fpeaker,
too, in Parliament, whofe only fault was a little over-
anxiety, in feafon and out of feafon, to get the laughers
on his fide — happened one day, in driving along a
narrow road, to meet a heavy-loaded waggon. What
was to be done ? he wifhed to be accommodating, but
for both to proceed was impoflible : afTerting, there
fore, the privilege of his ariftocratic vehicle, he per
emptorily ordered the farmer to get off the road.
cc Off the road ! not for thee nor any man in England ;
— and if thou doft not take that gimcrack of thine
out of my way direclly, I'll do — what I fhould be very
forry to be obliged to do." Our hero, though by no
means deficient in manhood, yet wifely confidering
that no honour could be gained in fuch an encounter,

The Bill of 1825 conjidered. 1 77

foon determined to take the difcreeter part. There
fore, fettling the matter of dignity as he could, with
the beft grace poflible, and with admirable manage
ment of his reins, he contrived to back out of the
difficulty, and at length lodged himfelf and his cur
ricle on a piece of fmooth turf, at a confiderable dif-
tance in the rear. cc And now, my friend," faid he,
" fince I have done this purely for your accommoda
tion, be fo good as to tell me what you meant by
faying that if I did not get out of your way, you'd do
what you would be very forry to be obliged to do ?"
" Why, pleafe your honour," fays the honeft York-
mireman, pulling off his hat, and making his loweft
reverence, cc if you had not backed, I muft."

The bill of 1825, which Dr. Phillpotts defignates
as an infult to the common-fenfe of the country, next
comes under confederation ; and he compares the fecu-
rities with which the conceflions were to be accom
panied with thofe of the bill of 1813; for thefe, as
he truly fays, are the only fubjects worthy of inquiry,
the conceflions in both bills being nearly the fame.
Thefe fecurities were two-fold; a new oath, and a
Royal Commiflion charged with certain duties touching,
firft, the appointment of Roman Catholic bifhops and
deans ; and fecondly, the reception of bulls and other
inftruments from Rome.

The fummary way in which the firft of thefe is
difpofed of is moft thoroughly characterise of Dr.
Phillpotts, and fhows that his wit was as ready as his
perception was keen. He fays : —

1 78 The Bill (^ 1 8 2 5 confidered.

" It contains nothing which has not been already pre-
fcribed by the Irifti Aft of the I3th and I4th of George III,
or by that of the 33rd of the fame king. So far, therefore,
we gain nothing. I beg pardon ; we gain the exchange of
and for or in two of its claufes. Fir ft, as the law now
ftands, the Irifh Roman Catholic c renounces, rejects, and
abjures ' the opinion that c princes excommunicated may be
depofed and murdered.' Your new fecurity-oath would have
made him renounce, etcetera the opinion, that princes ex
communicated c may be depofed or murdered ;' and for
the microfcopic vigilance which enabled you and your fellow-
labourers in this good caufe to fuggeft fuch an amendment
in the exifting law, I truft you will receive your due meed
of praife. The matter is really more important than the
Proteftant reader may at firft fufpe& ; for the perfons whofe
loyalty requires to be fecured by thefe provifions are prodi-
gioufly nice and accurate in eftimating the exa& quantum
of obligation which they undertake. c Is it fo nominated in
the bond ?' is their conftant inquiry. * If not, —

" be't but fo much

As makes it light or heavy in the fubftance,
On the divifion of one-twentieth part
Of one poor fcruple,"

they will have nothing to do with it.' '

He then proceeds to cite a marvellous inftance of
Roman Catholic cafuiftry which may, perhaps, provoke
a fmile, but which alfo fhows that he was not infen-
fible to the importance of the apparently trifling
change of and into or.

After pointing out the omiflions of the new fe
curity-oath, and infifting that the prefent attempt at
legiflation was inferior, in many important particulars,

Its Inferiority to Previous Bills. 179

to preceding ones, Dr. Phillpotts inquires for the
caufe of this retroceflion, and explains it on the af-
fumption that the whole proceeding was regulated ac
cording to the views and wifhes of the Roman Catho
lics themfelves : —

" Of the very perfons againft whofe apprehended hofti-
lity new checks and fafe-guards were to be devifed. Mr.
O'Connell wrote to his Dublin friends that fuch was the
liberal wifh for conciliation in England that he himfelf was
employed to draw the Bill ! And though the dignity of our
fenators took fire at the intimation, the internal evidence
proves, moft conclufively, either that Mr. O'Connell faid
what was literally correct, or at leaft that he was allowed
* an effectual negative ' on your deliberations. I fufpecl:
that Dr. Doyle was alfo of the party ; for the interefts of
his order were too amply and warily provided for, to have
been altogether the work of laymen however liberal. In
fhort, nothing feems to have been infifted upon which the
Roman Catholics could find any difficulty in yielding ; if
any objection on their part arofe, the point itfelf was aban
doned ; and this whole procefs of arranging the terms of
the oath was no better than allowing you to march out with
the honours of war, and fparing you the fhame of a fur-
render at difcretion."

That this ftatement is not overdrawn will be ac
knowledged by every one who has -been at the pains
to read the tranfactions of the Roman Catholic AfTo-
ciation in Ireland; the boaftfulnefs of its language,
and the arrogance of its claims might well juftify the
fears of every well-wimer of the State. The marvel
is that minifters mould have toyed with a danger
which called for an immediate exercife of reprefllve

180 No Voice allowed to Sovereign in

energy, and which, by being left unchecked, was def-
tined, only two years later, to rea<5t upon the conftitu-
tion with deftructive power. If no other merit be
longed to this letter of Dr. Phillpotts, it would have
at leaft this claim on the gratitude of Englimmen, that
it warned them of the danger towards which they
were drifting.

Having mown the infufficiency of the oath, he
next goes on to examine the fecond fecurity. The
bill proceeds to declare " that regulations touching
the appointment of Bifhops and Deans of the Roman
Catholic Church in Ireland are deemed necefTary ;"
and truly enough he fays, when the portentous powers
poflefTed, and exercifed, by thefe functionaries, in the
prefent ftate of that unhappy country, are borne in mind
— ftill more when it is recollected who and of what cha
racter are fome of the perfonages who now fill the ftation
of bifhops there, that one of them, under the fignature
of I. K. L.,* is by far the moft daring and feditious
libeller of the day — that another fcruples not (if the
public papers do not belie him) to addrefs an afTembly
of thoufands of the moft ignorant of his countrymen
in terms hardly fhort of excitement to immediate in-
furrection, it will readily be conceded,J:hat " regula
tions touching the appointment of them " are indeed
" necejfary"

The bill of 1813 gave the Sovereign the power of
fignifying his approbation or difapprobation of the

* James Kildare and Leighlin (Dr. Doyle).

Appointment of Roman Catholic Bi/hops. 1 8 1

appointment of Roman ecclefiaftics in Ireland, but this
important provifion was omitted in the bill of 1825.

" Our Sovereign was not to be permitted to exercife any
power whatever," fays Dr. Phillpotts, " no, nor to poflefs
the fmalleft influence, over this Irifh hierarchy, though it is
notorious that the fchifmatical Emperor of Ruflia, and the
heretical King of Pruflia, exercife in the appointment of the
Roman Catholic bifhops of their dominions a power far ex
ceeding the utmoft ever propofed to be given to His Majefty,
and have each of them an accredited agent at Rome chiefly
for the exercife of it."

It is worthy of remark that Pius VII, in 1 8 1 6, had
not thought it beneath the dignity of the Papacy to
allow a veto to the Britifh Sovereign, on the appoint
ment of bifhops in Ireland. That, however, which
was granted in days of weaknefs may, on the Roman
theory, be revoked in days of power ; and it was now
propofed that a Board of Commiffioners mould be
created, whofe duty mould be Cf to certify to His
Majefty the appointment of any Bifhop or Dean, to be
hereafter appointed in the faid Roman Catholic Church
in Ireland." Dr. Phillpotts rightly fays, "that, fo far
from this being a Jecurity^ it was in reality a new and
very important conceflion, being, in fact, nothing elfe
than giving them what the law has feen fit to with
hold — the public and formal recognition of their rank
and character of bifhops."

The ftructure of this Board of CommifTioners next
occupies the attention of Dr. Phillpotts. The defcrip-
tion of it is conceived in his happieft vein : —

1 8 2 Structure of Board of Commi/fioners.

" But of whom was the Board to confift ? Solely of the
Roman Catholic Bifhops themfelves. Such men as thofe to
whofe proceedings I have juft now adverted are to vouch for
the loyalty of their future colleagues ! Sir, I will not abufe
the patience of my readers by commenting on fuch a provi-
fion. I will only entreat you to follow up your own princi
ple, and recommend to your brother Secretary of State, Mr.
Peel, that in his amendment of the criminal law he give us
the benefit of this new fecurity for our lives and properties,
and provide that in future every perfon charged with felony
fhall be tried by a jury taken out of Newgate."

Dr. Phillpotts next comments on the remaining
fecurity — the power given to the board, confirming of
Roman Catholic bifhops, of infpecting and reporting
upon bulls and other inftruments from Rome ; and
mows that the real effect of this would be another
great conceflion. Independently of the extreme im
probability of any bull from Rome appearing to them
to be in any way injurious to the fafety or tranquillity
of the United Kingdom, or to the Proteftant Eftab-
lifhment in Church or State, it would give to the
bifhops of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland a
legalized right to communicate, as they pleafed, with
the Pope, and to circulate, as they pleafed, what
ever mandates he might think fit, or be induced to
ifTue. He then fums up the merits of the propofed
meafure as follows : —

" And now, Sir, having toiled through the bill, permit me
to recapitulate the fair and full amount of the new c fecuri-
ties ' therein devifed. Two of the three provifions which
you are pleafed to dignify by that name are found, in truth,
to be new and large conceffions to the Roman Catholics ;

Summary of the Bill. 183

the other, the fole remaining fruit of feven-and-twenty years
of hard labour, given fucceflively by fome of the acuteft and
moft powerful intelle&s which England and Ireland have
ever produced, to the momentous problem of * combining
Catholic freedom with Proteftant fecurity,' is the amendment
of two claufes of the Irifh oath of 1793, by changing therein
the conj unction and into or.

" Really, Sir, if the dignity of your ftation and character
did not forbid the fuppofition, I fhould imagine that you had
no other purpofe in recommending fuch provifions than to
laugh at the whole proceeding. But no : it comes from you
in very fober earneft ; and the moft charitable way of view
ing the whole matter is, to believe that you have fo tied and
hampered yourfelf with this unhappy queftion, that you muft
fee it difpofed of at any hazard. You dare not fcrutinize
the particular meafure devifed for the purpofe, whether by
yourfelf or others. You are afraid of looking into its details,
left they fhould be found too abfurd, or too mifchievous, for
even the powers of your eloquence to make them decently
producible to an aflembly of educated Englifhmen. You,
therefore, difpofe of the whole of them in a lump ; and the
majority of the Houfe, equally tired of the queftion, and
equally committed upon it, with yourfelf, cheers you while
you fay that ' you will not now enter into the queftion of
fecurities, further than obferving that you do not think we can
have any better than thofe propofed.' '

184

CHAPTER XII.

Dr. Phlllpotts' Firft Letter to Mr. Canning continued. The
General Character of Mr. Canning's Speech infupport of the
Roman Catholic Relief Bill of 1825. The Oath agalnft
Tranfubftantlatlon ajjailed. The Arguments of thofe who
defer ed its Repeal. Their Fallacy expofed. The True State
ment of the Cafe. Anfwer of Dr. Phlllpotts to Mr. Can
ning's Remarks on Tranfubftantlatlon. Advantage offelett-
ing that Dottrine as a Tejt. Treatment to which Oaths of
Allegiance to Temporal Sovereigns are obnoxious at the hands
of Roman Catholics. The Oath of 3 James I. The Gun
powder Treafon not the only Caufe of It. Objections agalnft
the Athanaftan Creed. Mr. Canning's Ufe of It admirably
llluft rated by Dr. Phlllpotts. Objeft of the Creed explained.
Doctrines of Roman Catholics render them unfit to legljlate
for Eftabli/hed Church. Fallacy of fuppojlng that Roman
Catholic Laymen, If admitted Into Parliament^ would not
bufy themfelves ^vith Ecclefiaftical ^ueftions. Doctrine of
Absolution enforced. The Roman Catholic DoRrine of the
Merit of Good Works. How ufed by Mr. Canning. Cal-
vinlfts and Roman Catholics contrafted. The Pope's Supre
macy not merely a Spiritual ^ueftion. Specious Arguments
of Roman Catholics. Different Foundations of Papal Autho
rity in different Countries. The Council of Florence. Doc
trine of Papal Supremacy not likely to receive much Favour
In England. Danger of Its Reception In Ireland. The
Bulls « Unamfanftam " and " Untgenitus." The Peril of
admitting to a Share In the Legl/lature thofe who hold the
Dottrine. The Pope determines the Point at which the
Allegiance of Subjects to their Sovereign ceafes. The Fourth
Later an Council on the Depofttlon of Kings. Dr. Phlllpotts
fully juftlfed in his Remarks upon the Pope's Supremacy.

JR. PHILLPOTTS then proceeds to exa
mine the chief points in Mr. Canning's
fpeech in fupport of the Roman Catho
lic Relief Bill of 1825, the merits of
which he had juft fubmitted to fo fevere a fcrutiny.

Mr. Cannings Speech. 185

The general character of it is thus defcribed by
him : —

" And here, Sir, I cannot but exprefs my aftonifhment
that fuch a fpeech fhould ever have iffued from your lips.
That there are in it, as there muft always be in every con-
fiderable effort of yours, proofs of uncommon talent, fplendid
imagery, felicitous expreflion, I need not fay. But the total
abfence of everything like reafoning, the careful avoidance
of all grappling with the real difficulties of your fubjecT:, the
fabrication of foolifh objections for the mere purpofe of
knocking them down ; above all, the tone of exaggeration,
of forced paffion, of idle menace, nay, of palpable contradic
tion which mainly diftinguifh it, form fuch a contraft to
your happier, I mould fay your ordinary, ftyle, as to give it
the air of traveftie, rather than of a genuine production of
your rare genius. I am not ignorant that it was character
ized by one of the ableft of your hearers as c unanfwerable ;'
but in fober truth I can hardly imagine a more amufing ex
hibition than an anfwer to it from yourfelf. How would the
unhappy wight who had ventured in your hearing to utter
fuch an harangue in oppofition to you have been made to
wince, and writhe, and groan, under the fting of your far-
caftic tongue ! You would have filenced him for the re
mainder of the feffion."

The chief efforts of the fupporters of the bill were
directed againft the application of a religious teft as a
qualification for the enjoyment of political privileges.
The oath againft Tranfubftantiation, therefore, had
to meet the firft aflault. Why, it was argued, fhould
religion be made a crime, and perjury a qualification
for office ? The treatment of the Roman Catholics
was contrary to the principles of all Government, fince
no Government has a right to eftablim an inquifition

.

1 86 Arguments again/I the Religious Tejl.

into the thoughts of men, nor to punifh any one purely
for religion. As to the qualifying oath, it was faid
that a DifTenter of any kind, or even a Deift or Atheift,
might take it, while the Roman Catholics alone were
excepted. Why, then, mould the doctrine of Tran-
fubftantiation be felected as a particular fubject for
denunciation and abhorrence ? A man might believe
in Jupiter or Ofiris, in all the hoft of heaven, and all
the creeping things in the earth, and yet enjoy the
honours and emoluments of thofe offices from which
the Roman Catholic was excluded. Was this right —
was it reafonable ? Should a man be punimed for
believing too much ? Should there be any other teft
than to allow every man to follow his own form of
religion, without reftridtion and limitation, fo long as
he continued to live a peaceable member of the ftate ?
Such was a plaufible way of ftating the cafe ; and,
tranfparent as is its fallacy, it found much favour,
even with people who ought to have been able to dif-
tinguifh fophiftry from reafon. It was all very well
to afk, Was the Roman Catholic likely to be a worfe
legiflator than the Deift ? — and, if not, to what was
his difqualification to be traced ? The anfwer was
eafy. The Roman Catholic was not difqualified becaufe
he held certain doctrines, but becaufe the Church which
taught thefe doctrines committed him to a political
combination inimical to the State, and which was liable
to make him at any moment the tool of a foreign and
hoftile power. The Roman Catholic, then, was ex
cluded from office, not becaufe his religion was con-

7 heir Fallacy expofed. 187

fidered as his crime, but becaufe it was looked upon
as evidence of his poflible, and not improbable, difloy-
alty. Lamentable, therefore, as it muft always be to
offer a religious teft, and, more particularly, one involv
ing the deepeft myftery of religion, to candidates for
office under Government, fuch a teft had been thought
to be neceflary ; and, if neceflary, it would be hard to
find one more fearching in effect than the denial of
Tranfubftantiation, — a doctrine interwoven with the en
tire fyftem of the Roman Church. A fubftitution for
this oath, fuggefted by Dr. Phillpotts, and which puts
the queftion upon its proper bails, occurs further on.
Meanwhile, the danger of thinking lightly of this oath,
as Mr. Canning and his adherents fought to do, or of
abolifhtng it without receiving in return ample fecuri-
ties for the loyalty of Roman Catholics, is forcibly fet
forth by Dr. Phillpotts.

In the courfe of his fpeech, Mr. Canning remarked
that, while a man was excluded from Parliament for
his belief in Tranfubftantiation, one who believed in
Confubftantiation enjoyed every privilege of the Con-
ftitution. Without averting that there was no dif
ference between the two opinions, he added, that " the
man who could make it a ground of exclufion from
political power muft have a minute perception of the
niceties of ratiocination, for which he might be envied
as a logician, but which was wholly ufelefs for the
purpofes of common life."

Dr. Phillpotts mows the value of this ftatement by
putting a parallel cafe : —

1 8 8 Advantage of Tranfubftantiation Teft.

" In order to protect the Bank of England from forgery,
it is highly penal * for any one to have in his pofleflion a
frame for making paper with waved lines.' Imagine, then,
fome fagacious country gentleman, frefh from Burn, to come
down to the Houfe, and denounce, with becoming felf-com-
placency, the monftrous injuftice, that while ftraight-lined
paper may be made with impunity, any honeft man who
happens to have a curved-line frame in his houfe is liable
to be fent to Botany Bay. c I do not deny,' fays he, ' that
there is a difference between ftraight and waved lines j but
the man who thinks that difference fo great that the poffef-
for of the waved-line frame is unfit to abide in the fame
hemifphere with him of the ftraight, has an acutenefs of
fenfibility to lineal rectitude which, however it may demand
our admiration, is utterly unfit for ordinary life.' '

But there was one advantage in felecting Tranfub-
ftantiation as a teft — it was a doctrine which might not
be diffembled. While Roman Catholics, therefore,
might find authorities to fupport them in practifing
mental refervation with reference to any oath, even if
it were that of allegiance or fupremacy to the King, the
doctrine of Tranfubftantiation was one upon which it
was not lawful to equivocate or diflemble. So far, then,
the teft was adopted with great fagacity . Dr. Phillpotts
gives one or two examples of the fort of management
to which oaths of allegiance to temporal fovereigns
(on Roman Catholic principles) are obnoxious: —

" In the firft place, any one who holds the fupreme power
of the Pope, even in temporal matters, may fafely fwear that
he has ' no temporal or civil power, direct or indirect, within
this realm,' becaufe his power, though it operates in tem
poral matters, is not temporal, but fpiritual. Again, by any
general, though negative declaration, againft any authority

Oaths to Temporal Sovereigns. 189

in general to be in the Pope, is only intended to deny his
having an ordinary authority ; it does not extend to his ex
traordinary, cafual, celeftial, divine authority, on great and
unufual contingencies. Once more, there is a very impor
tant diftin<5Hon between the fpecificative and re-duplicative
fenfe. This will be beft explained by an example. In Father
Walm's time, the Trim clergy were willing to fubfcribe to
this proportion : — * It is our doctrine, that we fubje&s owe
fo natural and juft obedience to our King, that no power,
under any pretext foever, can ever difpenfe with or free us
of the fame.' Here, the re-duplicative fenfe applies to * we
fubjettsj that is, while we are fubje&s — which we mall not
be when the Pope, by a judicial procefs, or bull, mail de
nounce the King excommunicated and deprived of the crown.
The re-duplicative fenfe applies alfo to * our King,' that is,
while he is our King, &c. Such were the principles of the
congregation of Irifh clergy in 1666, according to this honeft
Francifcan. Nor would they be moved from them by the
precepts of the Apoftles commanding obedience to the civil
powers, even under the reigns of the moft tyrannical em
perors. 'They fay, with Bellarmine,' (thefe are Walfh's
words) * the Apoftles ^ with the Fathers and other primitive
Chriftians, dijfembled on this point, becaufe they had not Jlrength
enough of men and arms to oppofe.y In what degree the living
generation of Irifli priefts may have departed from thefe
principles of their predeceffors, is more than I can pre-
fume to fay. If charity teaches us to hope the beft, it does
not forbid us to take all reafonable precaution againft the
worft."

Dr. Phillpotts next proceeds to confider the Oath
for Roman Catholics prefcribed by 3 James I, c. 4.
s. 1 5,* which had been defcribed by Mr. Canning as
a <c taunt " againft their religion. So far from this

* See Appendix C.

190 The Gunpowder Treafon.

being the cafe, he mows, moft conclusively, that its
object was not to affix a brand on any loyal fubject,
but to protect the State againft the machinations of
thofe who were agents of foreign powers. After ftat-
ing that the Gunpowder Treafon was the proximate
caufe of this oath being impofed, he alleges that, though
the proximate, it was very far from being the only,
caufe.

" That Treafon itfelf was, in truth, a natural fruit of the
doctrines then almoft univerfally taught in the Church of
Rome. In particular, as you need not to be informed,
feminaries were founded and endowed at Rheims, at Douay,
at Rome itfelf, for the education of Englifh Priefts ; whofe
firft duty it was to poifon the minds of their people againft
the heretical government under which they lived. The
right of deftroying heretics was (I wifh I could fay that it
no longer is) a part of the Canon Law ; that right had been
recently exercifed againft the facred perfons of fovereign
princes. The fame Canon Law (as we have already feen)
held, and ftill holds, it a venial offence to put to death an
excommunicated perfon, whatever be his ftation, provided
that it be done from zeal for religion.

"Thefe, and fuch as thefe, were the reafons for impofmg
this oath, which you have thought fit to defcribe as an idle
taunt."

The next topic in Dr. Phillpotts' letter deferves fpecial
attention, if only for the mafterly way in which he
deals with objections which are raifed againft the Atha-
nafian Creed on the fcore of its illiberality.* Genera
tion after generation are thefe objections revived, and

* See " Letter to Lord Grey on the Teft Aa," page 38.

The Athanafian Creed* 191

fucceflive attempts at legiflation (abortive up to the
prefent time, through God's mercy) teftify to the reft-
leflhefs with which man's unchaftened fpirit fubmits to
anything like dogmatic enunciation of truth. When
fpeaking of the doctrine of exclusive falvation, as held
by Roman Catholics, Mr. Canning had brought for
ward the Athanafian Creed, which expreflly declares
" that they who differ from it cannot be faved,"* as
an argument why Roman Catholics mould not be
" excluded from the enjoyment of their civil rights,
on the ground of believing the doctrine of exclufion."
The attempted parallelifm affords to Dr. Phillpotts
the opportunity of dealing upon his adverfary fome
terrible blows.

" Sir, the laws of the old Athenian legiflator Draco were
faid to be written in blood : for he annexed the penalty of
death to every offence whatever. Suppofe, now, that a
citizen of Megara had obferved to a friend at Athens, on
the cruelty of this fanguinary code — 'This is a dreadful
fyftem of yours, to put a man to death for ftealing a few
figs, or breaking into his neighbour's olive ground.' * Why,
my dear friend,' anfwers the Athenian, c how can you talk
fo abfurdly ? Did not you yourfelf hang a man laft week for
murder ? ' This, Sir, affords but a very faint illuftration of
the wifdom of putting our ufe of the Athanafian Creed on
a par with the tyrannical and intolerant principles of the
Church of Rome. That Church, among a thoufand fimilar
extravagancies, fentences a man to the lofs of all hope of
Chriftian falvation who fays that it is contrary to the infti-
tution of Chrift to mix water with wine at the holy Com
munion : the Church of England, in the Athanafian Creed,

* Mr. Canning's Speech.

192 Qbjeft of Athanafian Creed explained.

pronounces the fame of one who impugns the fundament
truths of Chriftianity ; and you are pleafed to fay, that this
deprives us of all right to find fault with the exclufive fpirif
of Rome.

" As to the Athanafian Creed being * a human expofttion
of the great myfteries of Chriftianity,' you muft forgive my
telling you that, if you had taken the trouble of acquainting
yourfelf with the nature of that formulary, you would not
have thought it a fit fubjecl: of fneer or banter. The
Athanafian Creed is not an expofttion of any myfteries ; it
does not aim at anything fo abfurd. But itjfates the funda
mental doctrines of the Gofpel, and, in refpect to the doc
trine of the Trinity, accompanies the ftatement with certain
diftinctions, which were rendered neceflary by the attempts
of heretics to corrupt the doctrine itfelf by their own daring
innovations. It alfo accompanies its ftatement with de
nouncing the awful fentence on unbelievers which our Lord
Himfelf denounced, when He gave to His Apoftles the
folemn charge c to go and preach the Gofpel to every crea
ture.' * He that believeth not fhall be damned.'

" You will perceive, therefore, that the main queftion
refpe&ing the Athanafian Creed is, firft, whether its doc
trines be true ; fecondly, whether they be fundamental.
The Church of England holds them to be both true and
fundamental, and therefore fcruples not to receive and ufe
the Creed, notwithftanding the ftrong terms in which the
danger of unbelief is there fet forth."

The real complaint againft the Church of Rome
Dr. Phillpotts declares to be, not that it excludes from
falvation thofe who impugn doctrines which it thinks
fundamental, but that it teaches its members to regard
every other Church but its own as neceflarily leading
to perdition. Now, as one of the objects of Parlia
ment is " to confult for the fafety and defence of the

Roman Catholics in Parliament. 193

Church of England/'* it is manifestly inconfiftent with
the ipirit of the Conftitution that members of the
Roman communion mould be entrufted with the legif-
lative powers of the State, when thofe powers muft
neceflarily be exercifed, if their own principles are car
ried out, to the detriment of the National Church.

" This, Sir," fays Dr. Phillpotts, a is the argument for ex
cluding Roman Catholics from Parliament, which we found
on their doctrine of exclufive falvation ; and you will, I am
fure, perceive that it remains completely untouched by your
pleafant commentary on the Athanafian Creed."

But while it was felt that the doctrines of the
Roman Church, if acted upon, would make it unfafe
that members of that communion mould be entrufted
with a voice in the legiflature of the country, yet it was
argued that thofe Roman Catholic laymen who might
obtain a feat in Parliament would not be likely to
trouble themfelves with queftions relating to the Na
tional Church. Dr. Phillpotts forcibly enough re
marks : —

" Sir, I certainly will not infult the members of a different
communion by fpeaking or thinking fo ill of them as to fup-
pofe that if they hold the doctrine of their Church in this
particular, it will be perfectly inoperative. On the contrary,
thofe who really hold it muft feel every inducement and
temptation to act upon it ; their fpiritual inftructors will be
ready enough to apprife them of this duty, and their own
pafiions will make them very willing to acquire the merit of
obeying it. In a Church which keeps fo accurate a ledger
of each individual's merits and demerits, and allows fo large

* Writ of Summons,
o

1 94 Dottrine of Abfolution enforced.

a premium on acts of obedience to itfelf, we may be quite
fure that there will be no want of inclination to comply with
fo eafy a demand. It may be faid, however, that there are
many profefled members of the Church of Rome, who do
not hold this doctrine, whatever their Church may tell them.
I really believe that there is much truth in this obfervation,
and if you could afcertain correctly who thefe are, I for one
mould not be afraid of feeing fuch men in Parliament. But
in the meanwhile it is quite idle to fpeculate on the poflible
conduct of thefe mere entes rationis"

The dodlrine of Abfolution next engages Dr. Phill-
potts' attention. Mr. Canning, for the purpofe of
foftening down the Roman practice and its confe-
quences, had ftated that in the abftract the doctrine
was cc abfurd."

" I truft, Sir," fays Dr. Phillpotts, " that you meant to
confine your cenfure to the extravagant doctrine of the Church
of Rome ; not to extend it (as your words feem to imply) to
abfolution generally : for if the latter were intended, I am
bound to tell you, that, in the plenitude of your parliamentary
privilege, you have prefumed to vifit with your ban one of
the moft folemn acts and declarations of our blefled Lord
Himfelf. After His refurrection from the dead, when ' all
power had been given to Him in heaven and in earth,' He
conferred on His apoftles and, in them, on their fucceflbrs to
the end of time, the power of abfolution, foberly and foundly
underftood."

The next topic in the letter relates to the " over
weening value" which, as Mr. Canning affirmed, Ro
man Catholics attach to the merits of good works.

"I will boldly venture to aflert," fays Dr. Phillpotts,
" and to appeal to your own better recollection for the truth
of the aflertion, that you never yet met with man, woman,

Cahimfts and Romanijis cont rafted. i 95

or child, quite fo filly as to advance this objection, which you
are pleafed to honour with a moft grave, laboured, hiftorical,
theological, and (need I add) triumphant reply. But how,
it may be afked, can fo portentous an hallucination have
come over you ? I will here hazard a conjecture. It is not
improbable that in the courfe of your morning's reading,
preparatory to a debate which was to crown your other high
diftin&ions with the honours of a dilettanti degree in divinity,
you happened to find that one of the charges fometimes
brought againft the Church of Rome was the exceffive value
afcribed by it to the works of man. This theological objec
tion you haftily miftook for a political one. And how was
it to be treated ? A man of ordinary genius would have
been content to fay, that however erroneous the tenet might
be, its obvious tendency is to render thofe who hold it good
and ufeful fubje&s ; that it is the height of injuftice, there
fore, to make it, in any degree, a plea for abridging their
political privileges. But this was very far from fatisfying
your afpirations. You aimed at higher glory than a dull
matter-of-facl: argument, however convincing, could beftow.
You were pleafed, therefore, to contraft the alleged error of
the Church of Rome with what you, I doubt not, ferioufly
believe to be a notion of the modern Calvinifts. c Would it
not,' you fay, c be more dangerous to a ftate to make good
works nothing and faith everything ? I prefer the man who
infifts on the neceflity of good works as part of his religious
creed, to the man who confiders himfelf controlled in all his
aftions by an inexorable fate. ' '

Mr. Canning then contrafts the Calvinifts of Charles
the Firft's time with the Roman Catholics of his own,
demanding who were they who brought the monarch
to the block ? and who ftripped epifcopacy of all its
fpiritual authority and temporal poffeflions ? The
anfwer to thefe queftions is, of courfe, not the Papifts —

196 The Popes Supremacy not

who, in Mr. Canning's eftimation, are a lamblike, un
offending fet of men, — but the Calvinifts, who were
moft violently oppofed to them.
Dr. Phillpotts retorts :—

" Your argument now ftands thus ; becaufe great mifchiel
was infli&ed on our Church and nation by one fet of mad
men two hundred years ago, therefore it is unjuft or foolifh,
or both, to guard againft the avowed hoftility of another
clafs of enemies in our own days ; becaufe the Dutch fleet
burned Chatham in the feventeenth century, therefore none
of our dockyards ought to be protected againft a French fleet
in the nineteenth.

"I am afraid, Sir, we gain but little by this improvement
of the argument. Leaving, therefore, this very favourite
piece of eloquence (for fo the cheers which attended it
prove it to have been) to the fatisfa&ion of yourfelf and
the admiration of your hearers ; I will remind you of a real
political objection againft the Roman Catholics, founded on
the value they attach to good works, but then it is to the
good works of others, not their own — and confequently it
has no tendency to improve either their loyalty or their
morals. On the merit of the fupernumerary fatisfa&ions of
departed faints, the doctrine of indulgences — remiffion, that
is, of the pains of purgatory — has been built. Thefe indul
gences have often been employed in Ireland as means to
ftimulate and reward the difloyalty of the people to their
heretical Sovereigns."

Dr. Phillpotts next proceeds to examine the doctrine
of the Pope's fupremacy. And this muft not be
thought to be merely a fpiritual queftion, furrounded
with entanglements which the fubtleft theologians have
hitherto been unable to unravel. It has its political
bearings alfo, and thofe of fuch magnitude and impor-

merely a Spiritual Queftion. 1 97

tance, that no ftatefman can fafely overlook them.
On behalf of the Roman Catholics it was urged that
they acknowledged all the principles of the Confti-
tution, and lived as peaceful fubjects, in obedience to
the laws. How could they, then, attribute to the
Pope any abfolute power, or any temporal authority,
as interfering with the conftitution and laws ? The
only fupremacy which they acknowledged in the Pope
was purely JpirituaL The allegiance which they paid
to the Holy Father had not hindered them from fhed-
ding their blood, at their country's call, upon every
battle-field of Europe; and were they ftill to be
charged with difaffection, and fufpected of revolt ?

Now, if all this had been ftrictly true, the Roman
Catholic would have had much indeed to complain of.
But argue as ftatefmen might, they could not gainfay
the fact that the authority claimed by the Pope, when
carried to its legitimate refults, ended in temporal
dominion, none the lefs galling becaufe it happened
to be ecclefiaftical. It is to this point that Dr. Phill-
potts addrefles himfelf with fingular clearnefs and
vigour.

Mr. Canning had declared that he faw no valid
objection in the argument drawn from the belief in the
fpiritual fupremacy of the Pope. In his judgment
the queftion was not whether this doctrine was acted
upon by Roman Catholics, but whether it was adled
upon in fuch a way as to make them dangerous to the
State.

Dr. Phillpotts proceeds, in the firft place, to (how

198 The Papacy in France.

that different foundations of Papal authority exift ii

different countries.
very valuable.

His obfervations on this point ai

" The French look to the Councils of Conftance, Pifa,
and Bafil, not only as truly oecumenical, but as having fo
fixed the fuperiority of Councils over the Pope, and in other
refpe&s fo limited his power, that not even the decrees of
fubfequent Councils, much lefs the conftitutions of Popes
themfelves, can work any material change in the principles
there eftablifhed. But befides this general fecurity they
procured for themfelves what was called * the pragmatic
fan&ion/ which recognized on the part of Rome a very
large meafure of independence in the Church of France, and
though this pragmatic fan&ion was afterwards difplaced by a
lefs favourable inftrument, — the concordat between Francis
I. and Leo X, — (till the refult has been the eftablifhment of
fo ftrong a barrier againft the word ufurpations of Rome,
that the liberties of the Gallican Church have formed a
proud exception to the general ftate of fpiritual bondage, in
which other countries of that communion have been all,
more or lefs, enthralled. For by the reft, the a6ts of the
councils, which I have mentioned above (excepting the de
crees of Conftance againft heretics) were all rejected ; and
in their place the decrees of the Council of Florence (which
was held by Eugenius IV. at the fame time with the Council
of Bafil, and in exprefs oppofition to it) were univerfally
received. Now, the Fathers of Florence afcribed fo large
and fweeping an authority to the Pope, that the French have
not only uniformly refufed to recognize this council as valid,
but when at Trent there was an attempt to obtain the re-
enactment of the Florentine Decree, the Cardinal of Lor
raine, and the other French prelates, pofitively declared,
that they would quit the council, and proteft againft its de
crees, unlefs the meafure were abandoned."

The Council of Florence. 1 99

Dr. Phillpotts then quotes the Decree of the Council
of Florence * as the recognized ftandard of orthodoxy
on the doctrine of the Pope's fupremacy.

" c We define, that the Holy Apoftolic See, and the Roman
Pontiff, have a primacy over the whole world, and that
the Roman Pontiff himfelf is the fucceffor of S. Peter,
the chief of the Apoftles, and true Vicar (or reprefentative,
TOTroryfyrys) of Chrift, and that he is head of the whole
Church, and the Father and Teacher of all Chriftians ; and
that to him in S. Peter was delegated, by our Lord Jefus
Chrift, full power to feed, rule, and govern the univerfal
Church ; as alfo is contained in the Acts of General Councils,
and in the holy canons.' '

Dr. Phillpotts then proceeds : —

" On the authority of this decree, it is not wonderful that
the moft inordinate extent of power has often been claimed
by the Popes, and too often conceded to them. It is ad
mitted by thofe who are moft eager to foften the harfher
features of the papal fyftem, by Mr. C. Butler in particular,
that the ultramontane doctrine, as it is called, the affertion
of the Pope's right to fupreme power, whether direct or in
direct, in all the temporal concerns of ftates, the power of
depofmg fovereigns, of interfering with the rights and duties
of fubjects, may here find apparent fupport. That doctrine
is not contradicted by any ecclefiaftical authority, it is
favoured at Rome, — and, everywhere elfe, it is tolerated by
thofe who do not affent to it. We may be aftonifhed at this ;
we may think it impoflible for any, who diffent from a
doctrine fo pregnant with crime and mifchief of the moft

* The Council of Florence was firft affembled at Ferrara
by Eugenius IV, who attempted to tranflate the Council of
Bafle thither in 1437. Two years later the Council of
Ferrara was tranflated to Florence.

2oo Teaching at Maynooth.

gigantic kind, to efteem it worthy of toleration and endur
ance. But fo it is ; individuals may difclaim the doctrine
for themfelves ; but, as we have already feen, they are not
permitted to condemn it as contrary to religion."

That the doctrine of the Papal fupremacy, when
carried to its extravagant refults, would not be likely to
gain much favour in England is admitted by Dr.
Phillpotts ; but he maintains that the cafe is different in
reference to Ireland, where the moft audacious claims
of the Pope are acknowledged and refpected. As a
proof of this he inftances the Bull Unam Janftam, in
cluded in the clafs-book at Maynooth, which teaches
that it is altogether a point neceffary to falvation for
every creature to be fubject to the Roman Pontiff.
One would imagine that the profanity of this affump-
tion would caufe it at once to be rejeded by all who
profefs refpect for the principles of religion ; but fo far
from this —

" It is the doctrine," fays Dr. Phillpotts, " now taught to
the ftudents who are training in the College at Maynooth for
the miniftry in Ireland, and thofe among them who mall follow
their own common fenfe, (which, be it remembered, they
are in this particular freely permitted to do,) and mall under-
ftand the Bull of Boniface according to the plain meaning of
the words, and the confefled intention of the writer, will
here find a complete and infallible authority for preaching
the fupreme power of the Church in temporals in its fulleft
extent."

The Bull Unigenitus, and the canonization of Pius V,
for deposing Queen Elizabeth are next referred to, for
the purpofe of ihowing that the Papal fupremacv is no
mere empty claim.

Dangers of Papal Supremacy. 20 1

" Sir, I muft think," fays Dr. Phillpotts, "that a claim to
fupremacy fuch as this, acknowledged and a&ed upon by all
the ecclefiaftics in communion with Rome — entering into,
and directing, their devotions — hallowed by aflbciation with
all that is moft facred in their religion, — is not a matter to
be treated with contempt."

He then proceeds to fhow the danger likely to
arife out of the doctrine of the Pope's fupremacy,
from a confideration of the fact that the power of
determining the precife point at which the allegiance of
fubjecls towards their fovereign terminates refts with
him alone.

" Now, Sir, can any Government be fafe if its fubjects are
thus at liberty to apply to any authority, foreign or domeftic,
to afcertain whether and when their duty of allegiance has
ceafed ? Certainly the danger is not leflened, but greatly
increafed, by that authority being ecclefiaftical, for a facred-
nefs is thus thrown about it, which makes its refponfes infi
nitely more venerable and convincing than any merely human
fanctions could ever give. But the confideration of greateft
moment in the account is this, — that there is a fpecific
quarter to which refort may be had for the folution of the
doubt. This muft facilitate the application for the folution,
and, ftill more, muft facilitate and encourage the growth of
the doubt itfelf. Where the confcience of the individual
muft decide, if he be indeed confcientious, he will of courfe
be fo deeply imprefled with the facrednefs of the obligation
under which his oath has laid him, that he will be eager to
keep down every nafcent furmife unfavourable to his fworn
allegiance J nothing but the ftrongeft and the moft palpable
cafe of tyranny will overcome his honeft fcruples. But if
there be an ecclefiaftical fuperior who can authoritatively
pronounce on the validity of his furmife, he feels himfelf
quite at liberty to give it a full and free vent ; to communicate

202 J • unification of Dr. Phillpotts'

it to that fuperior, and in communicating to fet it forth in
the ftrongeft colours, and fo to confirm and augment its
native force. Befides, if there were no external quarter to
which to have recourfe for folution of fuch doubts, every
individual muft be inclined to keep them to himfelf, until
the cafe be of fo grave and overpowering a neceflity as to
unite the whole mafs of the people in one common feeling.
On all thefe as well as other accounts the doctrine of the
fupremacy of the Pope is one which muft make every wife
legiflature, particularly every Proteftant legiflature, cautious
how they increafe the power of thofe who hold it ; and can
this feem of little moment when Irifli Roman Catholic
bifhops, who to the mafs of their people muft appear to fpeak
with authority fcarcely lefs facred than that of the Pope him
felf, are defcribing an intolerable tyranny as even now exer-
cifed by the government of their own land ?"

Such, then; being the claims put forward by the
Roman Church, it is evident that the queftion of the
Pope's fupremacy can never be a matter of indifference
to any ftatefman who labours for the honour and inde
pendence of his country. Nor muft it be imagined
that Dr. Phillpotts has, for the fake of indulging his
fatire, at all overftated Roman pretenfions. The fourth,
or great Lateran Council, which was prefided over by
Pope Innocent III, declares —

" That the fecular powers (hall be admonifhed, and, if
neceflary, be compelled by ecclefiaftical cenfures, to make
oath that they will, to the utmoft of their power, ftrive to
exterminate from their territory all heretics, declared to be
fuch by the Church ; and further, that if any temporal lord
being required and admonifhed by the Church, fhall neglect
to purge his territory from all taint of herefy, he fhall be ex
communicated by the metropolitans and other provincial

Remarks on Papal Supremacy. 203

bifhops ; and if he contemptuoufly omit to give fatisfa&ion
within a year, it mall be fignified to the holy Pontiff, in order
that he may thenceforth proclaim his vaflals abfolved from
fealty to him, and may expofe to Catholics his territory to be
occupied by them who, having exterminated the heretics,
may poflefs the fame without contradiction."

After this authoritative approval of wholefale mur
der and fpoliation, it would be vain to fhut one's eyes
to the monftrous refults which might well follow from
Roman claims. Nor will it be thought that Dr.
Phillpotts has fpoken too ftrongly in pointing out the
danger which would arife if the queftion of the Pope's
fupremacy were treated as belonging merely to the
region of fpirituals.

204

CHAPTER XIII.

The Letter to Mr. Canning continued. The Errors of the Ro
man Catholics charged upon *c our Perfecution." The excited
Jlate of the Country caufed the wildejt Statements to be received.
Extra ft from Speech of Mr. Grattan. The Cry of Perfe
cution deftitute of all Foundation. Shown by reference to
the Laity's Dire&ory. Extracts from that Workflowin
the Gratitude of Roman Catholics for the ConceJJions whic
had been made to them. The Rapid Strides made by that
Body in England. An Account of their Hierarchy^ Colleges,
Monajieries, and Convents. Dr. Phillpotts expofes the Dif-
honejiy of the Cry of Perfecution. Examples. The Power
of the Priejthood in Ireland. Its Abufe. « The Priefls
Curfe." Conduct of the Roman Catholic Bijhops. ATeJi
fuggejled by Dr. Phillpotts in place of Denial of the Doc
trine of Tranfubftantiation. Difficulty of coming to an
Arrangement with the Roman Catholics defcribed by Lord
Eldon. Dr. Phillpotts' later Opinion of his fuggefted Tejl.
His Regret that it had never been changed from a Specula
tive to a Practical Form. A more Elaborate Scheme of
Legislation on this Subjeft propofed by Dr. Phillpotts. A
Description of it. Conclujion of Firjl Letter to Mr. Canning.
Its EffecJ upon that Statefman. Opinion of the Edinburgh
Review. Conduct of Mr. Canning's Friends.

HE next portion of Dr. Phillpotts'
Letter is directed againft a ftatement
made by Mr. Canning, that the errors
of the Roman Catholics, particularly in
Ireland, were due to " our perfecution" A ftrange
charge it may be thought; but in making it this
gifted ftatefman was only echoing a popular cry.

The Cry of Perfecution. 205

Like men of lefs perception, he had fuffered his reafon
to be led captive by idle clamour. A fpell was on
the nation, and the loftiefl intellects were proftrated
by its power. No falfehood was too improbable to
be believed. The wildeft ftories were related as if
they were the moft fober truths. Not merely had
the Irifti Roman Catholics been crufhed, fo it was
faid, but their Church had been depreffed, to make
room for that which they believed to be no Church,
the very exiftence of which was only fecured by dif-
qualifying the people, and compelling them at the
fame time to pay for its fupport.

" A Church fuch as this," faid one of their warmeft ad
vocates,* " could not be called Chriftianity. It would be
a Church of ambition, of avarice, of bigotry, and intolerance;
a Church baptized in the iniquities of mankind, and wickedly
apoftatifing from God; a Church bearing the vices and
policy of man in one hand, and the people and God in the
other."

If fuch was the language held by ftatefmen and
fenators, it is little wonder that it mould find a ready
refponfe in the breafts of the ignorant and difaffeded.
It was not the firft time in hiftory that political ca
pital had been realized out of the cry of intolerance
and perfecution. But never, furely, was fuch a cry
raifed with fo little reafon. The notion of perfecu
tion was merely an after- thought of the Roman Ca
tholics to compafs their ends. Already had their

* Mr. Grattan.

206 Teftimony of "Laity's Directory"

gains been not a few, and now, that they could
quietly count them over, they were greedy of more.
Dr. Phillpotts fhowed the abfurdity of this clamour,
and the evidence of Dr. Moylan, as cited by him, was
an arrow fledged with their own feathers. But in
addition to this, a Roman Catholic almanack, called
" The Laity's Directory, publifhed by authority,"
contains fome curious and inftructive evidence as to
the way in which the conceflions, which from time to
time had been made in favour of the Roman Ca
tholics, were received among them. The teftimony
is valuable as coming from a fource which they them-
felves are bound to refpect.

" In 1778," according to the Laity's Directory , " the
Roman Catholics of England were freed from a part of the
galling penalties and reftraints which, through mifconcep-
tion of their principles and conduct, had been accumulating
upon them during the greater part of two centuries and a-
half."

This Act is defcribed by Bimop Walmfley, in a
letter addrefled on the occafion to the Roman Ca
tholic clergy of the weftern diftrict, as " an extraor
dinary favour" mowing cc the great humanity of go
vernment towards them," and cc fuggefting a propriety
of behaviour on their part, in ufing the prejent indul
gence with caution, prudence, and moderation."

" In 1791," according to the fame Dire&ory, " a partial
enjoyment of the rights of free fubje&s was extended to
them [the Roman Catholics] by the legiflature, and in par
ticular they were indulged with the important privileges of

and Roman Catholic Bifhops. 207

educating their children in their own religion, and of prac-
tifmg it in all its eflential duties, except the Sacrament of
Matrimony."

Upon the parting of this Act, Bifliop Douglas ad-
drefled a paftoral to the clergy and laity of the Lon
don diftrict, faying that " the day was at length ar
rived, when he could congratulate them on the greateft
of bleflings — the free exercife of their religion" — fince
" a humane and generous legiflature had feen the op-
preflion under which they laboured, and, by an act
worthy of its enlightened wifdom, had redrejfed the
grievances of which they complained." He then goes
on to fay that —

" As their EMANCIPATION from penal laws muft awaken
every feeling of a grateful mind, they fhould haften to cor-
refpond on their part with the benignity of government ; to
give to their gracious Sovereign the teft of loyalty which the
legiflature called for, and difclaim every principle dangerous
to fociety, and to civil liberty, which had been erroneoufly
imputed to them."

Bifhop Gibfon alfo fpoke of "the mildnefs and
condefcenfion of the legiflature," and called upon the
Roman Catholics of the northern diftrict " to exprefs
their obligations and gratitude for it." Bifhop Talbot
praifed the king as {C the beft of fovereigns," and " the
legiflature " as " indulgent, compajjionate, enlightened
and wife." And "upon the Duke of Cumberland
vifiting Rome (Laity's Directory, 1793), the Pope
defired him to convey to his Royal Father expreflions
of thankfulnefs for the indulgences lately granted to
the Roman Catholics of England," exprefling " his

208 Extracts from "Laity*s Directory"

wifh that every member of the legiflature mould be
informed of the grateful fenfe in which that indulgence
was held."

In the year 1792 a great number of the French
clergy, who had been banimed from their own coun
try, fought refuge in England, where they were not
only received with great hofpitality, but a fubfcription
was fet on foot for their relief, and was enforced by a
royal letter. To commemorate this act of national
benevolence, the Pope ifTued a brief, dated Rome,
September 2, 1793, in which he defcribed it as cc a
glorious defign," and went on to fay that cc the King's
humanity and munificence fhould ever be remembered
with the fine er eft gratitude"

In 1794 many religious communities, driven from
their homes by the French Revolution, fought refuge
in England.

"The Benediaine Dames of Bruflels," fays the Direaory,
" landed at S. {Catherine's ftairs, July the 6th, where they
met with the utmoft humanity and refpett, even from the low eft
ranks of Englishmen."

Again : —

" The Benediaine Dames of Ghent received from the
Duke of York, during the late campaign, on every occafion,
the kindeft protection ; and from Britifh officers and foldiers
in general fuck civility and refpecJ asftill excites their aftonijh-
ment and gratitude"

" The Regular Canonefles of the Holy Sepulchre of Liege
turned their eyes towards England for refuge, with hope and
confidence of finding, in their diftrefs, a fhare in the unparal
leled benevolence, charity, and generofity, which have been ex
hibited to fo many of their fellow-fufferers."

Extracts from " Laity s Directory" 209

" The Benedi&ine Dames of Paris arrived at Dover in
1795, where they were kindly welcomed. It will be their
pleafing duty to pray for the welfare of their native country
with redoubled earneftnefs, after having experienced its libe
rality , and enjoyed the blejjlngs of its free conftitution, fo widely
different from the boafted liberty, but real tyranny, from
which they have efcaped, and in particular for the beft of
Sovereigns^ that he may long reign over a happy and a united
people, and may fucceed in his gracious endeavours to bring
about univerfal peace and philanthropy."

So much for the cry of perfecution. But our fym-
pathies, it may be alleged, were extended mainly to
continental Roman Catholics, who happened at the
time to be fpecial objects of commiferation. Not a
word is faid about Ireland. While the yoke was being
relaxed in other quarters, it was being tightened in
that unhappy country. Let the Laitfs Directory
again be witnefs : —

" In 1796, the deftru£Hon of the greateft part of the Irifh
Colleges on the Continent, having alarmed the (Roman)
Catholic Bifhops in Ireland, they prefented a memorial to
Lord Weftmoreland, then Lord-Lieutenant, praying to obtain
permiflion to educate the Irifh clergy at home. They at the
fame time requefted a clergyman of their own communion,
refident in London, to converfe with the Britifh Miniftry on
the fubjecl:, and after a few converfations Earl Fitz- William,
who was fliortly to aflume the government of Ireland, was
inftru&ed to eftablifh and endow a college for the education
of the (Roman) Catholics of that country. The plan not
being completed during the fhort Viceroyalty of the laft-
named nobleman, it was taken up by his fucceflbr, Earl
Camden, who, not fatisfied with obtaining from Parliament
the neceflary grants, both for the fubfiftence and neceflary
buildings of the college, went In per/on, accompanied by the

P

2 1 o Rapid Strides of Roman

Lord Chancellor and the three chief 'Judges , befides the ufual
attendants of his high office, to lay the firft Jlone ; all the
neighbouring noblemen and gentlemen, and an immenfe con-
courfe of people, with the Prefident and ftudents, attending,
who teftlfied the moji unbounded joy and loyalty on the occafton.
After the conclufion of the ceremony, his Excellency com-
miffioned the Prefident of the College to conduct fuch of the
(Roman) Catholic Bimops as attended, in his own carriages,
to dinner at the caftle, where a fplendid entertainment was
prepared, and, as a mark of further refpecl to the ceremony,
he called upon the (Roman) Catholic Archbifhop of Armagh
to fay grace. Thefe laft circumftances cannot appear too
trivial for memory to record, when it is confidered that this
was the firft time ftnce the Revolution that a (Roman] Catholic
BIJhop was permitted to dine or to Jit In company with any Lord-
Lieutenant of Ireland. The whole meafure was carried into
effect with fo generous, fo liberal, and fo cordial a protecflon^ as
to endear him perfonally to the Catholics of Ireland, and to
imprefs them with fo grateful and fo affectionate a loyalty to
His Majefty's Government AS TIME CAN NEVER EFFACE."

Comment would be idle. If the Roman Catholics
could exprefs themfelves in language of fuch apparently
heartfelt gratitude, and within a few years could raife
a cry of oppreflion and perfecution againft their bene
factors, it is only one more proof of the eflentially
aggreflive fpirit of their Church, and of the need there
was to exact fecurities for their peaceable behaviour.

And here it may not be amifs to dwell for a moment
upon the refults of Roman Catholic agitation, as exhi
bited in the rapid ftride made by that body in England
during the laft thirty years. Few people are aware of
the extent of the Roman Catholic population in Eng
land and Scotland ; and thofe who are aware of it can

Catholicifm in England. 2 1 1

only think with fbrrow and alarm of the concefllons
wrung from a pliant Parliament by political agitators,
Simulated by prieftly craft. Freed from all reftric-
tions, and hampered by no unpalatable fecurities, the
intrufive Roman Church raifes her head fo proudly as
to make her a dangerous rival to the Eftablifhed
Church. Having gained fo much, why may me not
afk for more ? Already me has in England 19 bifhops,
including one cardinal archbifhop, 1196 priefts, 824
churches, chapels, and ftations, 50 communities of men,
153 convents, 10 colleges, and in Scotland 4 bifhops,
169 priefts, 195 churches, chapels, and ftations, and
2 colleges. Such is the machinery which the Roman
Church has at its command for winning back the
population of this ifland to cc the true faith." That fuch
a refult ftiould ever arrive is probably more than even
the moft ardent of the f< faithful" looks for ; but with
fuch an agency at work, with organization fo perfect,
with a network of religious houfes fpread acrofs the land,
and with a priefthood largely recruited from the ranks
of our own clergy, it would be mere folly to clofe our
eyes to the fatal legacy which our fathers bequeathed to
us, when they yielded, in a haplefs moment, to the cry
of cc perfecution," and gave to the Roman Catholic all
and more than he had dared to hope for.

After ftating the neceffity of defending the laws and
Government from the reproaches fo inconfiderately
caft upon them by Mr. Canning, Dr. Phillpotts pro
ceeds to cite the teftimony of the very men who had
been paraded as the miferable victims of oppreflion

2 1 2 Dijhonefty of Cry of Perfecution.

and perfecution. He quotes a letter of Dr. Moylan,
a Roman Catholic Bifhop, (i6th of April, 1798,) in
which he informs the faithful of his diocefe that they
"poj/efs the advantages of the Conftitution" that "the
penal laws under which our fathers groaned have been
almoft all done away," and that " theje are favours
that fliould excite and call out all our gratitude." He
then remarks upon thefe Statements : —

" You, Sir, will not be able to read language fuch as this
without deploring the lamentable degradation to which the
exifting penal code had thirty years ago reduced its victims ;
they were, it feems, fo far debafed by it that they could even
hug their chains and fancy themfelves happy, till Mr. O'Con-
nell, and Mr. Cobbett, and Mr. Canning, (have we lived to
witnefs the aflbciation ?) in the overflowing torrent of their
benevolence, have kindly aflured them that they are perfectly
miferable. To call on Ireland to value the Conftitution in
her prefent ftate, is, according to you, * to fuppofe her either
utterly incapable of appreciating the benefits of emancipa
tion1 ({hade of William Pitt! does he who calls himfelf
your difciple dare fo to abufe that word ?) 'or altogether
unworthy of it.' And yet, Sir, fo late as the i6th of
March, 1821, you were yourfelf fo infenfible to the wrongs
of that injured country that you could thus fpeak of the
condition in which the laws have placed her. c From that
time (1774) the fyftem was progreffively mitigated, until the
year 1793, which crowned and confummated the gift of civil
liberty, and left only political concejjion imp erf eft. ' "

In what follows, Dr. Phillpotts expofes a moft fruit
ful fource of mifchief in Ireland — the unwarrantable
power claimed by the priefthood ; a power which, as he
fhows, their prelates refufed to fanction, however much
they might find it convenient to wink at it. This

Power of the Priejih ood in Ireland. 213

power difplayed itfelf in denunciations from the altar ;
and, after making allowance for all explanations, it
muft be confefled that anathemas of this kind partook
of the character of actual excommunication.

And here it muft not be thought that Dr. Phill-
potts was fetting himfelf up as an antagonift of that
Ecclefiaftical difcipline which from the earlieft times
has been held necefTary for the well-governing of the
Church, which derives its authority from Holy Scrip
ture, which has been enforced by an unbroken line of
writers, beginning with S. Clement, and which has
received the fanction of a long feries of Councils and
Synods, including the famous one of Nice. No, he
was too true a Churchman for that. With his Prayer-
book in his hand, declaring {Art. of Relig. XXXIII.),
<c That perfon which by open denunciation of the
Church is rightly cut off from the unity of the Church,
and excommunicated, ought to be taken of the whole
multitude of the faithful as an heathen and publican,
until he be openly reconciled by penance, and received
into the Church by a Judge that hath authority there
unto" — he was not likely to fay anything to throw dif-
credit upon this falutary ordinance. But he held it as a
fcandal upon Religion that the priefthood mould be
allowed, often for no higher motive than to infure the
return of a favourite candidate at an election, to fow
curfes broad-caft over the land. The educated might
think as lightly of them as they deferved, but the unlet
tered would recognize the Voice of God. To chronicle
the outrages and murders committed in Ireland under

214 "The Prie/s Curfe."

the facred name of Religion would be to tranfcribe the
darkeft page in the hiftory of that unhappy country.

Boldly does Dr. Phillpotts attack this abufe of
facerdotal power, and fhow the expedients to which
even prelates would condefcend, in order to fhift the
refponfibility from their own fhoulders : —

" Sir, I muft not wholly omit to notice the power of
excommunication, as one of the moft efficacious caufes and
inftruments of the tyranny of the Irifh Priefthood. Ex
communication, I need not fay, is a fentence of abfolute
exclufion from all the rites and facraments of the Church —
and that, in the eftimation of every fmcere member of the
Church of Rome, it is therefore an abfolute exclufion from
the means of Grace, and from the hopes of Heaven.

" This fentence cannot, according to the principles of
that Church, be pronounced by any but the Bifhop, or
delegate of the Bifhop. Yet in Ireland the Parifh Priefts
are continually in the habit of exercifing a power fhort of
formal excommunication, but which has almoft equal effect
on the terrified minds of the people ; and what is not lefs
worthy of remark, the Bifhops are in the habit of contem
plating the exercife of this power in perfect filence. It is
called « The Prieft's Curfe.' "

Dr. Phillpotts then cites inftances of the exercife of
this dreadful power, and continues : —

" Yet, notwithftanding the notoriety of thefe and other
fimilar proceedings, we have not heard of a fmgle inftance
in which any one of thefe Clergy was called to account by
his ecclefiaftical fuperiors, for what Dr. Doyle has defignated
as * a thing fo wrong in its own nature, that it muft ftrike
every Chriftian,' namely, c that a Prieft, appointed to mi-
nifter between the people and God, fhould convert his
miniftry into a curfe.' And while the Bifhops have thus

Dr. Phillpotts fuggejied Tejt. 2 1 £

looked on in filence, the laity, even in England, have given
their fan&ion to this exercife of fpiritual authority in tem
poral matters, by returning folemn thanks to them for their
exemplary zeal and fervices."

The next point in Dr. Phillpotts1 letter relates to a
Teft which he propofes in place of the denial of the
doctrine of Tranfubftantiation. Some fuch a teft as
that fuggefted by him would at once have filenced
thofe noify agitators who were clamouring for <c reli
gious liberty," and who maintained that, in difqualify-
ing men for office on account of any particular creed,
Parliament was arrogating to itfelf the power of the
Almighty. But it mould be remembered that, with
the Roman Catholics, the queftion did not lie between
the denial of Tranfubftantiation and any other teft, but
between that and none. They were now fuing for
admiffion into the legiflature on equal terms with
Pro teft ants, and were not prepared to give fecurities
for their good behaviour. The day might come when
thefe fecurities would be inconvenient. It was wifer
then to be unfettered. The nation juft now was in a
pliant mood. It required but a little gentle preflure
to gain that which, a few years before, the wildeft
agitator had not dreamt of.

Speaking of the attitude of the Roman Catholics,
and the difficulty of making any fatisfactory arrange
ment with them, Lord Eldon fays, in a letter to Dr.
Phillpotts, September the 28th, 1828 : —

" I prefume that arrangement has not become more eafy,
when the Irifti Roman Catholics fay that they mufl be put

216 Dr. Phillpotts* fuggefted TV/?.

upon an equality^ at leaft, with the Proteftants ; that they
muft have a Reform in Parliament, and the right of fuffrage
continued to the freeholder under the influence of the Roman
Catholic priefthood, or ftill more largely eftablifhed; and
when they tell you that they not only will not be contented
with this, if they receive it of your gift, but that they will
have /Y, and can have it, whether you choofe to give it them or
not. I cannot imagine to myfelf what it is you can concede
to them with fafety to the Eftablifhed Church, if you are to
negotiate about conceflions to them, in pofleflion, in fatt^ of
the Government of Ireland, and profeffing to treat with the
Government of the United Kingdom^ on the part of c the people
of Ireland,' as a body, in fa&, though not in law, no part of
the people of the United Kingdom^ feparated at leaft from that
kingdom de fatlo^ as they allege. If their power can wreft
from you now what they afk^ will your granting what they now
afk difable them, by the exercife of that fame power, to wreft
from you whatever they may further pleafe to demand ?"

The new Teft fuggefted by Dr. Phillpotts runs as
follows : —

" I, A. B., do declare, in the prefence of Almighty God,
that I do not hold, nor believe that it is neceflary, in order
to their eternal falvation, that his Majefty King George, or
any of his liege people being Proteftants, be or fhall become
in any way fubjecl: to the Pope, or to any authority of the
See of Rome ; and I do declare, that I do not hold, nor be
lieve, that the Proteftant Church of England and Ireland, as
by law eftablifhed, is in fuch wife heretical, that any of the
members thereof are, on that account, excluded from the
promifes of the Gofpel, or cut off from Chriftian falvation ;
and I do faithfully promife and fwear, that I will not ufe any
power, right, or privilege, which does or fhall to me belong,
for the purpofe of deftroying, or in any way weakening, the
Proteftant Church and the eftablifhment thereof, as it is now
by law maintained. So help me God."

His Later Opinion upon it. 217

He then goes on to fay : —

" Sir, I bear no man's proxy, and am not fure that fuch
a teft would fatisfy any other individual of any party.

" That it would not fatisfy the Irifh leaders I am well
aware, and, in plain truth, I fhould have no fort of confi
dence in any that would. That it would be offenfive to the
Church of Rome, and to all the bigoted members of that
Church, I have as little doubt, and for that very reafon I
mould have more reliance on its efficacy. The great defi-
deratum has always been to feparate between the bigots and
the moderate members of that Church ; to bear with as
light a hand as poflible on the latter, and to control the hof-
tility of the former with the moft effe&ual reftraints that the
wifdom of the Legiflature can devife. I mould hope that,
among the nobles and the educated laity of that communion,
both in England and Ireland, many would be found who
would fpurn the mandates of their Church, if me mould
refufe to let them give to their Proteftant countrymen fuch
a fecurity for the fafe and honeft exercife of their functions
as legiflators."

Speaking of this fuggeftion for a new Teft, Dr.
Phillpotts fays, feveral years later :* —

" In looking back at this paflage, I frankly own that I do
not think it was marked by c abfolute wifdom,' though I do
not the lefs claim it as a teftimony of my fmcerity."

A little further on Dr. Phillpotts exprefTes his
regret — and it is one in which every thoughtful man
muft join — that the experiment of changing the teft
from a fpeculative to a practical one had never been
tried.

* " Letter to Sir Robert Inglis."

2 1 8 Elaborate Scheme of Legiflation

<{ One great advantage would neceflarily follow," he fays ;
u there would be no longer occafion left for declamatory ha
rangues on the hardfhip of punifhing men for fpeculative
errors ; there would be no more prattle heard about nice dif-
tin&ions between Tranfubftantiation and Confubftantiation ;
and you, Sir, and men like you, would be fpared the feeling of
felf-reproach, which the confcioufnefs of having recourfe to
fuch wilful fophiftry can hardy fail to inflict. In fhort, thofe
who would be excluded by fuch a teft could not be held up as
martyrs. It could not be any longer faid that they are ftigma-
tized as idolaters, — that they are punifhed for following the
dictates of their confcience. But the real truth would be made
manifeft, that they are the perfecutors in fpirit — that if there
be any ftigma it is ftamped by themfelves — that they are kept
out of Parliament becaufe their confcience itfelf would
compel them to abufe the power of legiflation into an engine
of fpiritual tyranny, and of aggreffion on the confcience of
others."

And here it will not be out of place to notice a
more elaborate fcheme of legiflation on this fubject
fuggefted by Dr. Phillpotts in 1828. It occurs in a
letter to Lord Eldon, and is worthy of all attention, as
fhowing the profound knowledge and ability which
he brought to bear upon a fubject that was diffract
ing flatefmen, and caufing the wildeft apprehenfion
throughout the country. In this fcheme, it is to be
obferved, as elfewhere, he infifted that the time of
exclujion was gone by, and that nothing remained but
to grant a meafure of conceffion, accompanied, however,
with fecurities of the moft ftringent kind. What thefe
fecurities were to be he himfelf fets forth ; and if
exception be taken to certain portions of his plan,
it muft be remembered that he has only failed where

propofed by Dr. Phillpotts. 2 1 9

the greateft intellects had failed before him, and it
muft be allowed that upon the whole the fcheme is
juft, reafonable, and falutary.

The following obfervations give an admirable view
of the pofition : —

" Permit me, in the outfet, to fay, that the longer I have
confidered the fubje&, and the more clofely I have been able
to watch the progrefs of events, the more firmly am I con
vinced of two things, apparently at variance with each
other; — firft, that the true principles of the Britifh Confti-
tution require that conceflions fhould not be made ; and,
fecondly, that the wretched degeneracy of our prefent race
of Parliamentary orators, their ignorance of thofe principles,
and, ftill more, their heedleflhefs of them — the want of energy
in moft of our public men, the want of authority in Govern
ment on this queftion (on which, fixteen years ago, Govern
ment moft — what mall I fay ? moft unhappily — abdicated all
authority) — above all, the lamentable abfence of almoft
everything that was wont to characterize an Englim Houfe
of Commons, combine to make it certain that, ere it is very
long, conceflions will be made."

He then goes on to fay that if this is a correct view
of the ftate of things, the prefent is the time when
conceflions may be made with the leaft hazard.

As a preliminary, however, to any act of legiflation,
he holds that the honour of Government fhould be
vindicated by the immediate fuppreflion of the Irifh
Aflbciation. He then fuggefts that the queftion of
conceflion, coupled with full and complete fecurities,
fhould be brought before Parliament in a fpeech from
the Throne. What thofe fecurities fhould be he next
proceeds to confider.

22O Defcription of

" And now for the plan of fecurities to be propofed.

" I will fet out, with obferving, that it would appear to
me utterly intolerable, in framing thefe fecurities, to have
recourfe to any Roman Catholics, leaft of all to the Pope.
I mould hope that Parliament would adopt, in their fulleft
fenfe, the words of the Duke of Wellington — c We muft
legiflate for ourfelves, and we muft legiflate firmly and fear-
leflly.' I will next fay, that it would appear to me of main
importance, in framing fuch fecurities to avoid all mention
of Roman Catholics, and to make laws in general terms, which,
while they operate on all, mall yet be fo devifed as to provide
againft the particular dangers to be apprehended from that
fed*.

" I. Let there be an A 61 for limiting the right of voting for
Members of Parliament for Counties in Ireland^ to perfons
having eftates in fee or in tail, or on leafe for lives renew
able for ever, if the value of the land is 40*. per annum, and
lefs than 20 /. per annum, leaving the right as at prefent to
all perfons having any freehold eftate in land above that value,
the value of the land to be in all cafes eftimated according to
the rent which it would obtain if let. The obvious benefit
of this firft fecurity would be to reclaim the power of
choofing Members of Parliament for Irifh counties from
pauperifm to property, and thereby to fecure the elections,
for a long time, almoft entirely to Proteftants. In the in-
ftances in which Roman Catholics would be chofen, they
would at leaft be men of property, and probably men of
education ; in either cafe not likely to be the {laves of the
priefthood.

" It is faid by all perfons acquainted with Ireland as it is
now, and as it was thirty years ago, (before the eftablifhment
of Maynooth College,) that there is now one marked change.
The priefts are of a lower grade in fociety, they are not, as
they formerly were, guefts of the Popifh gentry ; on the
contrary they are kept at a diftance, and have little or no
influence over them.

Scheme of Legijlation. 221

" A Proteftant gentleman of large fortune refldent in the
county of Clare, who has been with me lately, fays that the
Roman Catholic gentry are more annoyed, if poflible, than
the Proteftants, at the prefent domination of the priefthood
and the demagogues.

" II. An Aft, requiring all members of either Houfe of
Parliament before they fit or vote, to take an oath, or make
a folemn declaration, founded either on the writ of fummons
to Parliament, or on the declaration recently fubftituted in
lieu of the facramental teft, for the fecurity of the Church of
England and Ireland; the preamble of this Aft recognizing
this Church as a fundamental and effential part of the Gonfti-
tution.

" The benefit to be obtained from fuch a ftatute might
be found greater than at firft appears, for it would give to
the Church the pledge, not only of Roman Catholics, but of
all other Members of Parliament^ none of whom are at pre
fent under any engagement to it. If individuals would dif-
regard, or explain away fuch a pledge, it might be at leaft
hoped that the great body of either Houfe of Parliament
would feel and refpeft its binding nature. At any rate it
would ftrengthen the claims of the Church, and could not
fail to affeft powerfully the opinion of the people againft any
open attempt to injure it.

" This meafure would be ftoutly oppofed. Lord Hol
land protefted againft it by anticipation, during the debates
on the repeal of the Teft Aft. So did fome one in the
Houfe of Commons. But if no meafure is to be adopted
which will be oppofed, the Constitution may as well be given
up at once. After all, fince men of all parties are weary of
the Popifh queftion, and eager to get rid of it, any meafure,
ftrenuoufly infifted on as a neceflary adjunft to the fettle-
ment, might be carried, perhaps with lefs of refiftance than
under other circumftances could be hoped. The propofed
recognition of the Proteftant Epifcopal Church of England and
Ireland as an effential part of the Conftltution was made in the

222 Defcription of

preamble of the bill of 1813, as amended in the Committees
of the Houfe of Commons of that year ; and it is enacted in
the A61 of Union that the prefervation of the faid United
Church mail be deemed an eflential and fundamental part of
the faid Union.

" III. An A& declaring it to be unlawful and prohibiting
all perfons from calling themfelves or others in any printed
book or papery under any qualification, Bifhops of any See,
Deans of any Chapter, or Rectors of any Parifh, of which
there are according to law Bifhops, Deans, or Rectors of
the Eftablifhed Church of England and Ireland. The
penalty for the firft offence, a fine of ; for the fecond,

the party to be required to withdraw himfelf from the realm,
and if he return without licence under the Great Seal, tranf-
portation.

" The neceffity of fome fuch ftatute is becoming every day
more imperative. The Popifh Bifhops call themfelves, and
are called Bifhops of the Irifh Sees without fcruple, and
often without qualification. If it be urged (as it was urged
by Mr. Pitt) that in an Epifcopal Church there muft be Bijhops^
at leaft let the Popifh Bifhops be compelled to imitate the
modefty of the Proteftant Bifhops of the Epifcopal Church
of Scotland, who abftain not only from all titles of Lordjhip^
but even from calling themfelves publicly Bifhops of Sees^
though there are no other perfons entitled by law to thofe
Sees. Within the laft two months this abufe and ufurpation
in Ireland has extended beyond Bifhops, and even beyond
Deans. The Parifh Priefts are now called by the Aflbcia-
tion, Catholic Reftors^ and fometimes fimply Reftors of fuch
and fuch parifhes. But for this invafion of the rights of the
Eftablifhed Church there is abfolutely no femblance of ex-
cufe : it is fheer, unmixed, unmitigated hoftility ; it is an
avowal of a determination to ufurp the character of the
National Church, in defiance and in derogation of the law
ful rights of the Proteftant Epifcopal United Church of
England and Ireland.

Scheme of Legijlation. 223

"IV. A Statute, prohibiting all perfons in Holy Orders,
or pretended Holy Orders, or pretending to Holy Orders,
and all Minifters or Teachers of Diflenting Congregations
in Ireland, from in any wife interfering in any contefted
ele&ion of members of Parliament in Ireland, whether by
afking votes, or otherwife, making any candidate ineligible,
and confequently all votes given to him thrown away, who
(hall, by himfelf, or by his agents, ufe, or knowingly permit
the aid or interference of fuch perfons, faving, however,
the right of fuch perfons to vote themfelves, and to folicit
the votes of perfons who are tenants under them of any land
or tenement, and are qualified to vote.

" This, it will be feen, is here confined to Ireland^ but if
in order with the better grace to exclude the influence of
the Popifh Prieft, it be thought fit to extend the operation
of the propofed meafure to England alfo, it is a reftraint
which I think would not do us any harm ; nor would it, I
believe, excite any feelings of annoyance or diflatisfa&ion in
the minds of the Proteftant Clergy of this country. Perhaps
even our fair influence would not be leflened by it.

" V. A general oath of allegiance and fupremacy to be
taken by all perfons in Ireland as a qualification for office,
or on any other occafion when either the common oaths of
allegiance and fupremacy are required at prefent, or the
oaths prefcribed in the A6h of 21 and 22 Geo. III. and 33
Geo. Ill, to be taken by Roman Catholics (in lieu of the
oaths now required by law) : —

" I, A. B., do take Almighty God and His only Son, Jefus
Chrift, my Redeemer, to witnefs, that I will be faithful and
bear true allegiance to our moft gracious Sovereign Lord
King George the Fourth, and him will defend to the utmoft
of my power againft all confpiracies and attempts whatfo-
ever that mail be made againft his perfon, crown and dig
nity, and I will do my utmoft endeavour to difclofe and
make known to his Majefty and his heirs, all treafons and
traitorous confpiracies which may be formed againft him or

224 Defcription of

them ; and I do faithfully promife to maintain, fupport and
defend to the utmoft of my power the fuccefiion of the
Crown in the heirs of the body of the Princefs Sophia,
Ele&refs and Duchefs Dowager of Hanover, being Pro-
teftants, againft any perfon or perfons whatfoever ; and I do
declare that I do not believe that the Pope of Rome or any
other foreign Prince, prelate, ftate or potentate hath, or
ought to have any temporal or civil jurifdi&ion, directly
or indirectly, within this realm. (I do further declare that
our Sovereign Lord King George is over all perfons and in
all caufes ecclefiaftical and civil, to the laws of this kingdom
in any wife appertaining, within his dominions fupreme.)
And I do fwear that I will defend to the uttermoft of my
power the fettlement and arrangement of property in this
country as eftablifhed by the laws now in being. I do hereby
difclaim, difavow, and folemnly abjure any intention to fub-
vert the prefent Church Eftablifhment ; and I do folemnly
fwear that I will not exercife any privilege to which I am,
or may become, entitled to difturb or weaken the Proteftant
Church of England and Ireland^ as by law ejtablijhed, or the
Proteftant Government in this kingdom.

" So help me God.

" The whole of this form of oath is taken from thofe al
ready prefcribed to be taken by the Irim Roman Catholics,
by 21 and 22 Geo. III. c. — and 33 Geo. III. c. 21 (Irifh),
except the words defcribing the fucceffion of the Crown
and the (hort claufe within brackets, and except the alter
ation of the laft claufe into words more diftin&ly expreffing
the intention of the legiflature, and lefs obnoxious to unfair
interpretation than thofe in the exifting ftatute. The claufe
fo altered refembles one propofed by Mr. Canning in 1813,
and making part of the Bill as amended in the Committee of the
Houfe of Commons of that year.

" In England it would not feem neceflary to make any

change in the oath of allegiance, or oath of abjuration.

TheOath of Supremacy (to be taken by all perfons when-

Scheme of Legiflation. 225

ever the prefent Oath of Supremacy is required), might be
as follows, taken from the 3yth Article of the Church : —

" I, A. B., do declare that the King's Majefty hath the
chief power in this realm, unto whom the chief government
of all eftates of this realm, whether they be ecclefiaftical or
civil, in all caufes, doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to
be, fubjecl: to any foreign jurifdi&ion.

" So help me God.

" Provifo — That the prefent oaths be continued to be taken
by all perfons holding any office, benefice, place, or dignity
in the united Church of England and Ireland and the Church
of Scotland, by all Judges in every Ecclefiaftical Court, by
perfons holding office in all Univerfities, or taking degrees
in Englifti or Scotch Univerfities or Colleges, or fchools of
Royal or State foundation.

" Provifo — That all Archbifhops, Bifhops, Priefts and
Deacons of the united Church of England and Ireland, all
Chancellors or Vicars-General of Diocefes, all Judges in
any Ecclefiaftical Court or Court of Appeal, fhall take the
oaths now required by law.

" The ftifFer Papifts may object to the concluding words,
becaufe they hold that all baptized perfons are fubjecl:, in
fpirituals at leaft, to the jurifdi&ion of the Church and of the
Pope. But let thofe that will, object to fuch a form, their
objection would only prove more ftrongly the neceffity of
requiring it.

" The reafon for propofmg different forms of oaths for
the two countries is the different ftate of the law at prefent
in the two. The oath now taken by the Irifti Roman Ca
tholics contains a claufe fo much more diftin&ly engaging
them to abftain from injuring the Proteftant Church, than
any in the bath of the Englifh Roman Catholics, that it
muft not be furrendered. And it is not likely that it would
be objected to by the Irifh Proteftants, if enjoined to be
taken generally by all perfons in Ireland. But if propofed
as the oath to be taken by all perfons in England it would,

226 Defcription of

without doubt, be ftrongly oppofed, nor would it be defirable
to difturb the adjuftment made by the ftatute which re
pealed the Teft and Corporation A6rs in the laft feflion.

"VI. An A<£t prohibiting any perfon from advifing the
King in the difpofal of ecclefiaftical benefices who is not a
member of the Church of England and Ireland ; and enact
ing that if any ecclefiaftical benefices be in the patronage
of any office under his Majefty, the perfon appointed to
fuch office fhall at the time of taking the other oaths, re
quired to be taken by him on entering thereupon, make
and fubfcribe the following declaration : —

" I, A. B., do folemnly declare that I am a member of
the united Church of England and Ireland.

" So help me God.

" In default whereof the exercife and enjoyment of the
faid patronage fhall belong (during the continuance in office
of fuch perfon), to any Privy Councillor whom his Majefty
fhall appoint, fuch Privy Councillor firft making and fub-
fcribing the faid declaration.

" It may feem to be neceflary, confiftently with this meafure,
to retain the exifting reftraints on Roman Catholics who are
poflefled of advowfons. And, in my opinion, there are
obvioufly found reafons of juftice and policy againft per
mitting any perfons who are not members of the Eftablifhed
Church to prefent to any of the benefices of that Church.
But as other difTenters are permitted to enjoy this patronage
it would perhaps be hardly neceflary or expedient to retain
this one badge of fufpicion againft Papifts alone. If retained
there might be a permiffion to the Catholics to fell advow
fons, if entailed, purchafing lands with the money received
for the fame, and making the lands fo purchafed liable to the
fame limitations as the entailed advowfons.

" VII. An A&, charging all afleflments for the repair of
churches and other church-rates in Ireland, on the landlord,
and not on the occupier of lands, and tenements, — requiring
the occupier to pay them to the collectors, but authorizing

Scheme of Legijlation. 227

and empowering him to dedu£t the fums fo paid from the rent
due to the landlord. Perhaps an appeal to the quarter
feffions might be given on the expediency or amount of any
particular rate.

" I apprehend that, at prefent, in every cafe of fair letting
of lands or houfes, the landlord does, in fa6t, pay the rates,
inafmuch as their amount is calculated as an outgoing, when
the bargain is made j but in the exifting ftate of Ireland,
where very little calculation often takes place, previoufly to
the tenant taking his fmall tenement, and exceflive rents are
blindly fubmitted to, thefe rates do really fall upon the tenant,
and from their very nature and object, being impofed for the
fupport of a Church to which he is adverfe, they muft be
peculiarly galling. This is, perhaps, the moft fpecious of all
the alleged grievances. But the neceflity of requiring thefe
rates to be paid by all, whether members of the Eftablifhed
Church or not, refts on a principle which muft on no account
be relinquiflied, how vehemently foever it be aflailed.

" VIII. A continuance at leaft for fome years of the pro
hibition againft Roman Catholics in Ireland (not pofleffing
certain qualifications in land or money) having arms in their
pofieflion.

" It would be obvioufly prudent to effect this by filently
retaining the prefent difability. If it be oppofed there is un-
anfwerable ground for infifting upon it, in the turbulent and
perilous ftate of that country.

"If this, or any other reftraint, be retained (as fome
others muft be — particularly in refpedl: to advowfons, and
alfo in refpedl: to voting at parifti veftries, the founding of
monaftic eftabliftiments, the prohibition of proceflions, etc.)
—it will be much better to follow the precedent of the
Englifh A& of 1791, which diftin&ly enumerates the laws
to be repealed, than the Irifh A& of 1793, which commences
with a general repeal of all difabilities, and then proceeds to
fpecial exceptions.

" IX. A provifo fimilar to that in 1813 for A& of Uni
formity, etc.

228 Effe&s of Firjl Letter.

" X. Proceffions, etc.

" I have thus ventured to detail my opinions as to the
meafures which ought to accompany conceflion, if conceflion
be made. For doing this at fo great a length I offer no
apologies, for your Lordfhip has been pleafed to require it of
me. It would be the higheft reward I could receive, if your
Lordfhip mould be hereby induced to give your own mind
to a confideration of this important fubjecl:. From you
would proceed a fcheme of real fecurities if any are attain
able."

It has been thought advifable to infert this fcheme
of fecurities at full length, in confequence of its im
portant bearing on Dr. Phillpotts' alleged change of
fentiment on this fubjecT:, which will come under con
fideration further on.

The fuggeftion for a new teft brings us to the con-
clufion of Dr. Phillpotts' firft Letter to Mr. Canning.
And well may it be doubted whether his wit ever
fhowed a keener edge or brighter polim than when
laying bare the fophiftry with which that great ftatef-
man fought to difguife arguments which not even his
matchlefs eloquence could refcue from fo mercilefs a
difledlion. Writing to Sir John Copley, Mr. Can
ning fpoke of this letter as cc Dr. Phillpotts'^/#£/#g-
pamphlet." He might with equal truth have called it
withering, for it penetrated to the very heart's core of
the fyftem of expediency put forward in a fpeech which
was vaunted as a mafter-piece of ftate-craft. That
fpeech was publicly characterized as " unanfwerable,"
and fo perhaps it feemed, until a thinker as acute as
Mr. Canning, and one whofe wit was both more fubtle

Opinion of "Edinburgh Review." 229

and piercing, ftepped down into the arena to give him
battle. Then it was that the vaunted armour of proof
turned out to be no better than pafteboard.

The truth is, that, brilliant as were Mr. Canning's
talents, he was overmatched by Dr. Phillpotts. It was
one thing to encounter amateur theologians on the
floor of the Houfe of Commons, it was another to
meafure fwords with a man to whom theology was
both a bufinefs and a paftime, and who, in this fenfe,
had been a man of war from his youth. It is not, of
courfe, to be expected that an eminent ftatefman mould
of neceffity be an eminent divine ; and therefore to fee
a man like Mr. Canning ftepping out of the region of
his own ftudies and refearch, and difcourfing glibly of
doctrines and creeds, reminds one of Achilles in petti
coats playing the amiable to the daughters of Lyco-
medes. An occafional awkwardnefs in gait is excufable,
but fuch perpetual blundering and Humbling reveals
the deception. That the merits of this letter were too
great to be fafely difguifed is confefTed by Dr. Phill
potts' old enemy, the Edinburgh Review. In March
1827, an article appeared entitled, " Late Vote of the
Houfe of Commons," in the courfe of which the writer
admits that " he certainly has been quite confiftent ;" and
goes on to fay that " he has always ftoutly delivered
his fentiments on one fide ;" that "he has juftly acquired
the credit of being about the ableft of thofe who efpoufe
that fide ;" and that " he now perfeveres in the fame
courfe, at a time when the expediency of fuch conduct,
for the interefts of him who holds it, becomes daily

230 Conduft of Mr. Cannings Friends.

more queftionable." This is high praife, but it is no
more than he deferved.

But while Mr. Canning was fmarting from his
wounds, his friends were doing their beft to cover his
retreat. And this they thought would moft effe&ually
be fecured by difcharging a volley of mud at the head
of his aflailant. He was called cc a foul-mouthed
parfon," " a libeller," and fo forth. But all this time
he was quietly occupying the field of battle and collect
ing his energies for another attack.

231

CHAPTER XIV.

Rapid Sale of Firjl Letter to Mr. Canning. The fudden
Change in that Statefman's Views. Dr. Phillpotts' Second
Letter to htm. An Unguarded ExpreJJion. The Attitude of
the King in reference to the Roman Catholic £)uejl ion. Mr.
Cannings Accommodation ofhimfelfto the new Order of Things.
Dr. Phillpotts^ Remarks upon it. Reflexions on the Rapidity
of the Change. Mr. Canning s carelefs Treatment of the
Coronation Oath. The Real Obligation of that Oath defcribed.
TheReafon why Lord Kenyan gave Dr. Phillpotts the Letters
of George III. Dr. Phillpotts not averfe to ConceJJion to the
Roman Catholics with adequate Securities. The Idea of Se
curities ridiculed by Mr. Canning. Inconfiflent with the Tone
of his earlier Policy. A Comparifon. Effett of Dr. Phill
potts' Two Letters to Mr. Canning. Their Tone. The
Author vilified by Anonymous Writers.

|HE firft Letter to Mr. Canning rapidly
pafled through feveral editions ; and it is
faid that Lord Lyndhurft, while M after
of the Rolls, made very liberal ufe of it
in one of the moft brilliant fpeeches which he ever
delivered in the Houfe of Commons. The fecond
and fhorter Letter,* dated May 7, 1827, was called
for by the necefllty of examining fome of the leading
points in the fpeeches delivered by Mr. Canning in
Parliament fince the publication of the former letter.

* " A Short Letter to the Right Hon. George Canning,
on the Prefent Pofition of the Roman Catholic Queftion.
By Rev. Henry Phillpotts, D.D., Redor of Stanhope."

232 Attitude of the King.

In the courfe of a very few weeks that diftinguifhed
ftatefman had learnt the advantage of difcretion, and
the danger there would be in forcing the confciences
of fo many enlightened and religious Englifhmen to
accede to a meafure from which they revolted. With
thefe feelings in his mind, and with the defire of poft-
poning the Roman Catholic queftion for the prefent,
he fomewhat incautioufly fpoke of a better day which
would hereafter dawn, and exprefled a hope that the
prefent darknefs would be fucceeded by a light which
would illuminate the profpect.

The opportunity afforded by this unguarded ftate-
ment was not to be loft, and Dr. Phillpotts avails him-
felf of it thus : —

u Sir, I need not fay that I am one of thofe who are in
volved in this darknefs which you4 venture to predict will be
fo fpeedily difpelled. Our number is at prefent very large,
and it is our pride, our boaft, the theme of our grateful,
heartfelt acknowledgment, that our Sovereign himfelf has
been pleafed exprefsly and folemnly to place himfelf at our
head. With a firmnefs and determination worthy of the
illuftrious ftock from which he is defcended, with the frank-
nefs and manly candour becoming the King of a free people,
with due veneration for that pure faith of which he is the
hereditary and fworn defender, he has been pleafed to allay
every uncomfortable furmife, which the fele&ion of you, as
his chief minifter, muft otherwife have caufed. He has
voluntarily announced to the moft exalted members of our
hierarchy, for the information of their brethren, and through
them of the people at large, that he is unalterably attached
to the religion of his fathers — that he fees and will repel the
danger which muft follow the removal of thofe fafeguards
with which the wifdom of our anceftors (a phrafe of which

Mr. Canning s altered Pofture. 233

I am not yet afhamed) has fenced and protected our Pro-
teftant Church — and that the oath which he took at his
coronation has bound him for ever to reject every fpecious
pretence of political expediency which may be urged to
divert him from his purpofe. I repeat that this aflurance,
fo folemnly given, far more than counterbalances any appre-
henfion which the apparent triumph of the caufe of liberalifm
in feveral recent appointments would otherwife excite."

The letter then goes on to congratulate Mr. Can
ning on the happy way in which he has been able to
accommodate himfelf to the new order of things, and
more particularly for his determination Cf not prema
turely " to ftif up the feelings of the people of England,
fince the object for which he had been fo earneftly
ftriving was, after all, merely <c a theoretic, though
efTential good."

" That this defcription contains fome very found and im
portant meaning," fays Dr. Phillpotts, " I have not the
fmalleft doubt ; but it is probably a confequence of that thick
darknefs in which I am involved that I am unable to perceive
how a merely * theoretic ' good can, at the fame time, be

* eflential.' I am ftill more unable to comprehend how that
which we have often heard defcribed by you as the greareft
practical evil which can afflict the land, that which was

* perfecution ' two years ago, and * oppreffion * two months
ago, is now only a theoretic evil, which may well wait on
your convenience for its cure."

Then follows a brief review of Mr. Canning's lan
guage and conduct on this queftion, for the purpofe
of mowing the importance he attached to its fpeedy
fettlement. The retrofpect does not reflect much
credit on that ftatefman's confiftency.

234 Review of Mr. Canning's Conduct.

Dr. Phillpotts next proceeds to comment on the
abrupt and fufpicious change which had taken place
in Mr. Canning's fentiments relative to prefTing the
Roman Catholic claims upon the feelings of Englim-
men. It would be difficult to cite a pafTage more
thoroughly characteriftic of the writer's peculiar vein
than the following : —

" Now all this, c though I moft powerfully and potently
believe it,J and though I cannot but think it infinitely wifer
and more becoming an Englifh ftatefman, than the violent,
and (pardon me when I fay it), almoft inflammatory lan
guage and fentiment in which you indulged on the two im
mediately preceding difcuflions. Yet, I own, it excites my
admiration. I admire, not that your uncommon vigour of
intellect fhould improve every paffing event, and turn it to
the beft account — not that you fhould grow wifer, as you
grow older ; but that you fhould grow fo very much wifer
in fo very fhort a fpace of time ; — above all, that you mould,
apparently without any effort, attain at once to that higheft
point of human wifdom, the power of knowing and acknow
ledging that you have been in error ; the capacity, in fhort,
of eating up, at a fmgle mouthful, every unwife or mif-
chievous fentiment you may have exprefled on a great quef-
tion of national policy during half of your political life, and,
after the moft grievous and the wildeft aberrations, fhould
return to the very point of fober difcretion from which you
ftarted fifteen years ago. This it is which chiefly excites
my admiration, and which, in my humble opinion, places
you quite alone among ftatefmen — far above all comparifon
with any of the vulgar herd of politicians of whom I have
ever read or heard."

After fome obfervations on the rejection by the
Roman Catholic prelates of the fecurities provided by

His Treatment of Coronation Oath. 235

the Bill of 1813, which has already been referred to,
Dr. Phillpotts takes Mr. Canning to tafk for the light
and carelefs way in which he had fpoken of the Corona
tion Oath, faying that its day was gone by, and taunting
a member of the Houfe of Commons with feeling an
old-fafhioned reverence for it. " I hope," he continued,
at lead one bugbear is difpofed of, and we mail hear
no more of the Coronation Oath." Such language,
proceeding from fuch a quarter, is {hocking, and, if
unrebuked, would have been productive of moft ferious
mifchief. The dignified reply of Dr. Phillpotts merits
the gratitude of every religious mind. He mows
wherein the obligatory nature of the Coronation Oath
really confifts ; and it is hard to fay whether the vigour
of his language, or its intrepid honefty has the largeft
claim upon our admiration.

" The Oath taken by the King is a purely perfonal aft ; /'/
is an aft between himfelf and God. To apply to it our little,
convenient, political, or legal fictions — to talk of * the omni
potence of Parliament,' as enabling it to annul, or difpenfe
with, the oath of the Sovereign — to fpeak gravely of ca
keeper of the King's confcience ' — to fay that, as c the King
can do no wrong,' as all his queftionable a&s muft be re
garded as the a&s of his Minifters, therefore they muft
direct him in fuch a cafe as this — would be more foolifh
even than it would be prefumptuous. He might, and pro
bably he would, communicate with thofe perfons — whether
his political Minifters, or others — on whofe counfel he places
moft reliance, in an affair of fo great fpiritual and confcien-
tious moment to him ; but it would be the grofleft infult to
the Monarch, it would be degrading him from the rank of a
moral being, to fuppofe that he would regard the advice of

236 Real Obligation of Coronation Oath.

fuch counfellors, be they who they may, as acquitting him
of the awful refponfibility of a&ing in fuch a cafe on the
deliberate determination of his own confcience. Every
Sovereign, duly imprefled with the folemn nature of the
obligation of his oath, (as, thank God, our own gracious
Sovereign has eminently proved himfelf to be,) would feel
that that oath bound him, as he values the favour of God,
and the promife of that * crown immortal,' before which his
earthly diadem fades into a worthlefs toy, to decide for him
felf whether the bill offered to his acceptance do indeed con
tain provifions at variance with one of the great and exprefled
objects of his oath, with c the maintenance, to the utmofl of
bis power^ of the laws of God, the true profeffion of the
Gofpel, and the Proteftant reformed religion eftablifhed by
law/ The Minifter who fhould dare to tell his Sovereign
that he is exempt from this duty, that he may a£t on the
confcience of his Parliament, or of his Privy Council, in-
ftead of his own, in fuch a cafe — I will go no further, and
will fay, that the Minifter who fhould dare to treat the Coro
nation Oath, in the prefence of his Sovereign, with half the
levity with which you have not thought it unbecoming to
treat it in your place in Parliament, would bring on himfelf
a refponfibility which no honeft man would incur for all that
kings or parliament can give or take away."

It was in confequence of reading this very ftriking
pafTage that Lord Kenyon confided to Dr. Phill potts
the letters of King George III, which will be referred
to in their proper place. A little further on Dr.
Phillpotts calls attention to the Treaty of Union
with Scotland, which provides, that every King or
Queen, at their coronation, fhall take an oath to main
tain and preferve inviolably the fettlement of the
Church of England as by law eftablifhed, within the

Mr. Canning's Irreverence rebuked. 237

kingdom of England and Ireland. He then con
tinues : —

" Sir, when I read the terms in which this oath is con
ceived, it is to me a matter of high gratification, moft cer
tainly, but of no furprife, that a prince, alive to the moft
folemn of all obligations, fhould refolve, as our gracious
Sovereign has refolved, never to concur in granting to his
Roman Catholic fubje&s fuch conceffions as they and their
advocates in Parliament are accuftomed to demand. If,
indeed, fuch meafures were propofed as the confcience of
the Sovereign could regard as a real, fair, ample fecurity, of
the great objects to the maintenance and prefervation of
which he is bound by oath, the cafe would be different ; and
you would then have the aflurance afforded by every aft of
his illuftrious reign, that he would rejoice in extending an
equal (hare of civil and political rights to all his fubje&s.
But who is prepared to offer fuch fecurities ? You, Sir,
have been pleafed to proclaim yourfelf c no fecurity-grinder.'
You have faid, in a tone of fneer and banter, which few of
your hearers, and ftill fewer of your readers, have thought
particularly appropriate to the occafion, c the tafk of finding
fecurities to fatisfy thefe over-fcrupulous gentlemen is fome-
thing like the tajk impofed on the prophet in the Bible^ who was
not only to find out the interpretation, but to guefs at the dream*
We all remember a perfon, fome years ago, charged with
intending to bring the Scriptures into contempt by his pro
fane application of their language ; and he procured an
acquittal from the jury by adducing inftances of fimilar irre
verence (among others) from fome of your juvenile produc
tions. Are you defirous that a future Hone fhall be able to
cite in his defence the graver authority of your addrefles to
Parliament, at your prefent mature age, and in the character
of Minifter of the Crown ?"

Dr. Phillpotts then fhows how inconfiftent was Mr.
Canning's fneer about fecurities — that thofe who felt

238 Mr. Cannings Inconjiftency .

the danger fhould find them — with the tone of his
earlier and wifer policy : —

" Sir, I need not tell you that this point was not mooted
for the firft time on the yth of March laft. Several years
ago a fpeaker in your own Houfe, of whom, in common with
a large portion of my countrymen, I was then a warm ad
mirer, made upon it the following very judicious remark : —
c Is it not a little extraordinary that Proteftants {hould be
expected to be of one mind as to granting everything to the
(Roman) Catholics, when fuch a difcordance of opinion reigns
among the (Roman) Catholics themfelves as to the terms on
which fuch grant would be acceptable to them ? // has been
argued rather whimfically, that the granting party Jhould be
prepared to offer terms to the petitioning party ; but furely it is
for thofe who fee k a conceffion in their own favour to propofe
thofe means offecurity^ and thofe terms of arrangement, without
which, it is admitted on all hands , that conceffion could not be
rationally made.' The fpeaker, of whofe words I have here
availed myfelf, is one with whom, if I may venture to judge
from your moft recent effufions, you are very far indeed
from being on fo good terms as your beft friends could wifh.
It was the Right Hon. George Canning, of May 25, 1810,
a gentleman from whofe fpeeches, about that period, it would
be eafy to adduce arguments in direct contradiction to almoft
everything you have faid on this fubject during the laft ten
years, up to the epoch of your return to founder views on
the night of Tuefday laft."

That thefe letters fhould have had the effect of
creating a profound impreffion throughout the country
of the danger of further conceffion to the Roman
Catholics, without adequate fecurities, there can be
little marvel. They were eagerly bought and read ;
they were the theme of univerfal converfation, and
they promifed to beftow on their author a more than

E/etfs of the Two Letters. 239

tranfient fame. The marvellous ability with which
he had mattered the intricacies of a meafure that had
exercifed the moft powerful intellects, and the con
centration of analytical force which he was able to
bring to bear upon the minuted queftions that arofe
from it, furprifed his friends and confounded his ene
mies. He was charged with having treated Mr. Can
ning with " fcurrility ;" but it may fafely be affirmed
that even in the moft vehement paflages of his letters
he never held any language towards that lamented
ftatefman which might not fafely be ufed towards a
public man on public affairs. It was eafy enough for
anonymous writers to vilify him, but it was not fo
eafy to anfwer him. Proudly confcious, therefore,
alike of the nobility of his caufe, and the purity of
his motives, he could feel that

" we muft not ftint
Our neceflary a£ions, in the fear
To cope malicious cenfurers ; which ever,
As ravenous fifties, do a veflel follow,
That is new trimm'd."

And plenty of this fmall fry were in his wake from
this day forward. Few men have been more expofed
to detraction than Dr. Phillpotts, and no part of his
public career has been more relentlesfly aflailed than
his conduct on the queftion of Roman Catholic relief.
Whether he remained confident to his principles, or
whether, like Mr. Canning, whofe apoftacy he de
nounced, he firft wavered and then fell, will be feen in
its proper place.

240

CHAPTER XV.

The Letters of George III. to Lord Kenyan. Motives for their
Publication under the Editorjhip of Dr. Phillpotts. His
"Judgment in publijhing them much queftioned. The Necef-
fity of fame Explanation. Dr. Phillpotts' Letter to an Eng-
lijh Layman on the Coronation Oath. The Refult of a Com-
parifon of the various Forms of Coronation Oath. The
Edinburgh Review on the Letters of George III. Remarks
on the Conduct of Air. Jeffrey. The King a Legijlator. As
fuch^ he is bound by his Coronation Oath. Argument of Op
ponents^ drawn from cafe of Charles 7, refuted. The Oath
not made to the People as reprefented by Parliament. The
Commons excluded from the Coronation. The Clergy are Parties
to this Oath. Ufe of this made by the Advocates of Roman
Catholic Relief. Dr. Phillpotts the Panegyrift of William
111. Popular Opinion that Pledges of ConceJJion to the Roman
Catholics were given at the Union. Its Falfity Jhown. Mr.
Pitt's Conduct in reference to Roman Catholic Relief. Mr.
Burke's Opinion on the fame SubjecJ. Dr. Phillpotts not
averfe to all Concejfion. The Necejfity of adequate Securities.
A Change of Sentiment charged upon him. Its Falfity. The
far-fighted Policy of the Roman Catholic Clergy. Eflimate of
Dr. Phillpotts' Letter. Its General Tone.

HE fecond Letter to Mr. Canning was
followed almoft immediately by another
publication which bore the name of Dr.
Phillpotts. This time, however, his
labours were only editorial. Some important papers
had pafled between the late King, George III, and
Lord Kenyon and Mr. Pitt, relative to the queftion of
Roman Catholic relief. Lord Kenyon, who had
formed a very high opinion of Dr. Phillpotts' talents

Letters of George III. to Lord Kenyan. 241

as a controverfial writer, placed them in his hands,
with authority to publifh them in any way he thought
proper. Conceiving that the perufal of thefe remark
able documents could only have the effect of increasing
the veneration felt by the country for the {ingle-
minded, uncompromifing, and confcientious regard of
the obligation of his oath which the King had difplayed,
under circumftances of no ordinary difficulty, they
were given to the world. The opinion of the late
King on the queftion of Roman Catholic Emancipa
tion was well known ; but his fubjects, as a general
rule, were not aware of the pains which he had taken,
and the confcientious anxiety which he had felt, to
come to a right conclufion. Whether he was fuccefT-
ful or not in the attainment of that object is not the
queftion ; but one refult of the publication of his
letters is to prove, if fuch proof were wanting, that
the King was what has been juftly called " the nobleft
work of God" — an honeft man.

Another motive for the publication of thefe letters
is to be found in the fact that they reflected the greater!
credit on the inflexible integrity of Mr. Pitt, who pre
ferred to facrifice office, and peril the friendship of his
Sovereign, rather than tarnifh his honour or defert his
principles.

Thefe letters appeared on the 25th of May, 1827.*

* " Letters from His late Majefty to the late Lord Ken-
yon, on the Coronation Oath, with his Lordfhip's Anfwers ;
and Letters of the Right Hon. William Pitt to His late
Majefty, with His Majefty's Anfwers, previous to the Diflb-
lution of the Miniftry in 1801."

242 Dr. Phillpotts' Letter to an Englijh

They are eleven in number, dating 'from March 7,
*795> to Feb. 13, 1801. It forms no part of the
defign of this work to enter into an examination of
them, and they are only referred to on account of their
having been put forth under the fanction of Dr. Phill
potts' name.

Whether he had a&ed with his ufual fagacity in
publiming thefe letters was a matter which was warmly
debated. The advocates of Roman Catholic relief
hailed their appearance as a triumph, affecting to fee
in them a vindication of the principles for which they
were ftruggling, while even the adherents of Dr.
Phillpotts were doubtful whether a grave error in
judgment had not been committed. Many of his
oldeft friends began to regard him with disfavour,
while fome fcrupled not to mow their refentment by
breaking off all intercourfe with him. It feemed
neceffary, therefore, that fome explanation of the
grounds of publication mould be offered. Dr. Phill
potts was not the man to refufe the call, more particu
larly when he felt that his difcretion was not at fault,
and his explanation affumed the form of A Letter to
an Englijh Layman,* which was publifhed early in the
year 1828.

After a graceful tribute to the memory of Mr.
Canning, he vindicates the pofition that the Church of

* " A Letter to an Englifli Layman on the Coronation
Oath, and His late Majefty's Correfpondence with Lord
Kenyon and Mr. Pitt, &c. By Rev. Henry Phillpotts, D.D.,
Redor of Stanhope."

Layman on the Coronation Oath. 243

England is an effential part of the Britifli Conftitution.
This leads him to compare the various forms of
Coronation Oaths which have been in ufe ; and after
mowing at confiderable length that fecurity againft
Popery and the perpetual maintenance of the Church
of England was an efpecial object of the alteration
made in that Oath at the Revolution, he exprefles
himfelf as completely fatisfied that no monarch, as
fenfible of the obligations of his oath as George III.
was, could have done other wife than reject every pro-
pofition for repealing the Teft Laws.

The Edinburgh Review (June, 1827) had affected
great delight at the publication of the Letters of George
III. by Dr. Phillpotts, and had taken the opportunity
of indulging in a moft cruel attack upon the under-
ftanding of the late King. As the inftrument by
which thofe letters had been given to the world, Dr.
Phillpotts naturally felt it to be his duty to vindicate
the memory of one of the beft of fovereigns from the
malignant afperfions which had been caft upon it.
This brought him once more face to face with his old
antagonift Mr. Jeffrey. After referring to the claim
of that gentleman to be confidered as verfed in the
principles of the Britim Conftitution, upon which he
was fo careful to impart inftruction to his readers, he
continues, in reference to his refponfibility as editor of
the Review, —

" He will prefent himfelf to his admiring hearers, as one,
who, calling himfelf a Briton, could yet find a gratification in
infulting the memory of the Father of his- people — as one,

244 The King a Legijlator ; and, asfucb,

who could lift the hoof of brutal infolence againft the dead
lion of the Houfe of Brunfwick — as one, who could avail
himfelf (as he hoped) of a miferable difguife to outrage the
feelings of this whole nation towards a King, beloved,
honoured, and lamented, like Ge"orge the Third. This (hall
be his high diftindtion ; and, if in the fcorn of every truly
Englifti mind he can find nothing to abafh or difconcert him,
his fenfibilities (hall yet be excited, for I will make him feel
that the publication which he has dared to put forth, is as
unfounded in principle, and as contemptible in argument, as
it is loathfome and deteftable in fpirit."

Let any one read the next twenty pages of Dr.
Phillpotts' Letter, and fay whether he did not redeem
his pledge. To give extracts would only {poll the
harmony of the whole.

He next goes on to fhow that the office of the King
is not merely executive, as the advocates of Roman
Catholic relief wifhed to make out, but that he has
real power as a legiflator, and that, as fuch, he has an
independent right to pronounce upon the fitnefs of any
meafure fubmitted for his acceptance by the Houfes of
Parliament. This appears from the very form of
making ftatutes ; every new law being enatted by the
King, by and with the advice and confent of his great
council, the Parliament. " He enacts," fays Dr.
Phillpotts, <c by willing that their advice take effect ;
he refufes his confent, by announcing his purpofe of
considering the matter with himfelf."

The next point is that the King, as legiflator, is
bound by his Coronation Oath. The courfe adopted
to prove this, although it difplays Dr. Phillpotts1 great
hiftorical refearch, can fcarcely be made attractive to

bound by his Coronation Oath. 245

the general reader. Suffice it to fay that he fhows,
both by reafon and by authority, the utter futility of
the notion that " the Coronation Oath applies to the
conduct of the King, in his executive capacity only, not
as a branch of the legiflature."

But it was alleged by the advocates of Roman
Catholic relief that the Coronation Oath never pre
vented our princes from making fuch alterations in the
laws affecting the Church, as on the whole they thought
fit, and the cafe of Charles I. was cited, who gave his
confent to a bill, which ferioufly curtailed the legiti
mate power of bifhops, for the purpofe of preventing
the Church from finking into abfolute Prefbyterianifm.
This was perfectly true. But it is equally true that
nothing but the mod extreme neceflity could ever
juftify fuch an act.

" Whenever fuch a neceffity fhall again occur," fays Dr.
Phillpotts, " it will be for the King of England firft to fatisfy
himfelf of its exiftence, and, if he be convinced that it really
exifts,to follow the dictates of the higheft fpecies of prudence,
that mafter virtue which balances conflicting duties, and
decides which, in the collifion, is to be preferred ; decides,
however, not according to the fliifting appearance of tem
poral expediency, but according to the eternal rules of truth
and juftice."

But, in order ftill further to evacuate the obligation
of the Coronation Oath, a happy expedient was hit
upon by Mr. Charles Butler, the old antagonift of
Dr. Phillpotts, who maintained that it was f c made to
the people, as reprefented by Parliament." The fallacy
of this is admirably fhown by Dr. Phillpotts, who

246 Falfe Notion of Coronation Oath.

points out that, in order to make Mr. Butler's argument
worth anything, the Oath mould be made to the people
only. The circumftances, however, under which it is
taken — before God's Altar, and under the fan&ion of
Chrift's Body and Blood — proclaim fuch an aflumption
to be wilful and criminal forgetfulnefs of Him by
Whom Kings reign. " Where is the mortal legifla-
ture," indignantly demands Dr. Phillpotts, cc that mall
dare to abrogate this folemn vow ? "

" But neither is this all," he proceeds — and this confide-
ration deferves to be noted — " the Oath is, in part, taken
not only in favour of, but alfo to another human party, be-
fides the people at large — the Bifhops and Clergy of the
Church of England. Thefe have an intereft in the laft
claufe of the Oath, which, whatever be the power of Parlia
ment, it is certainly not within its moral competence to
furrender."

As to the notion of the Coronation Oath being made
to the people, as reprefented in Parliament y Dr. Phill
potts (hows its utter futility. Parliament, he truly
enough fays, has nothing to do with the King's coro
nation : neither is there any reafon why that ceremony
mould take place during the fitting, or even the ex-
iftence, of Parliament. The peers aflift at it, not as
lords of Parliament, but as peers of the realm, while
the Houfe of Commons does not bear part in it at all.
This was notably the cafe at the coronation of Wil
liam III, when, according to Ralph, <c the Commons,
who had given his Majefty the crown, were not per
mitted to affift in putting it on." While the repre-
fentatives of the people, however, are excluded from

Eulogy of William III. 247

the ceremony, the bifhops have always borne a con-
fpicuous part in it, a portion of the oath being taken
to them. " It appears, therefore," fays Dr. Phillpotts,
cc not only that it is not to the people, as reprefented
by Parliament, that the oath is taken, but that a part
of it is not taken to the people at all."

The fact of the clergy being parties to this oath did
not efcape the notice of the advocates of Roman Ca
tholic relief ; but, while fome found it convenient to
difTemble their knowledge of its exiftence, others, with
more of ingenuity than honefty, tried to make it ap
pear that the queftion of further conceflion depended
mainly, if not entirely, on the confent of the bifhops
and clergy. It was a fkilful change of tactics, and,
under cover of this falfe attack, the Roman Catholics
hoped to gain pofTeflion of the citadel. That they
did ultimately gain pofTeflion of it was due in no
fmall degree to the odium which they had fo fuccefs-
fully ftimulated againft the clergy.

A little further on in the Letter, Dr. Phillpotts
anticipates Lord Macaulay as the panegyrift of Wil
liam III. It is doubtful whether that diftingui fried
writer, in his zeal to re-animate the decaying corpfe
of Whiggifm, ever indulged in more fulfome adulation
than Dr. Phillpotts himfelf, when he defcribes William
III. as " one of the moft confcientious Sovereigns that ever
fat on the Englim throne ! " It is painful to find that,
in his laudable vehemence againft Papal aggrefllon,
Dr. Phillpotts mould have allowed himfelf for a mo
ment to forget incidents in the life of that monarch,

248 No Conceffions promifed at ^fime of Union.

which may be palliated by a " liberal " hiftorian, but
which can fcarcely be aflbciated, among upright men,
with delicacy of confcience, or refinement of moral
fenfe.

Reference has already been made, in an earlier part
of this work, to a commonly -received belief that
liberal conceffions would be made to the Roman Ca
tholics at the Union between Great Britain and Ireland.
There were not wanting thofe who fcrupled not to
affirm that pledges of conceflion had been given. Mr.
Butler, in particular, found it convenient to dilate in
glowing terms upon the expectations which had thus
been held out to his co-religionifts. It may ferve to
mow the remarkable eafe with which hopes are excited
in fome minds, when it is faid that not a (ingle line
occurs in any of Mr. Pitt's fpeeches which Roman
fophiftry can avail itfelf of as containing even the
germ of fuch a pledge. That no concefllons were
promifed is mown by Dr. Phillpotts, by a reference to
the fpeeches of Mr. Fox, Mr. Pitt, and Lord Caftle-
reagh, as well as the declaration of George III.

He then pafTes on to confider thofe portions of Mr.
Pitt's letter to the King, dated January the 3 1 ft, 1 801,
which were claimed by the Roman Catholics as being
favourable to their pretenfions. It does not fall within
the fcope of this work to examine Mr. Pitt's conduct.
If it did, it would be feen how little caufe the Roman
Catholics had to congratulate themfelves upon their
champion. The fumming-up of the matter by Dr.
Phillpotts, defcribing the vacillating policy purfued

Mr. Pitt and Roman Catholic Relief. 249

towards Ireland, difplays as much accuracy in thought
as brilliance in compofition : —

"Whether the practical difficulties attending the fettle-
ment of fuch a point would have been found too great even
for Mr. Pitt to overcome, is a queftion into which it is not
neceflary now to enter. That thefe difficulties, great in
themfelves, have fmce his time become incalculably greater,
is unhappily too manifeft ; nor does there appear the fmalleft
reafon to believe, had he been fpared to his country to the
prefent day, that, according to the principles uniformly pro
claimed by him, he would now be found among the advocates
for conceffion. It is true that he never would have endured
that the mifchief fhould have reached its prefent hideous
magnitude without any attempt to keep it down ; he never
would have endured that the known laws of the land fhould
be outraged with impunity — that they whofe duty it was to
execute and enforce thofe laws, fhould not only witnefs their
violation with calm complacency, but mould, even in their
place in Parliament, themfelves pronounce the moft plaufible
excufe for paft delinquency, and adminifter the ftrongeft
provocative to future excefTes. Above all, he never would
have endured that the majefty of Britifh legiflation fhould
be made the fcorn and laughing-flock of Irifh demagogues
— that an illegal aflbciation,* put down by an exprefs ftatute
in one month, fliould, in the next, rear its brazen front
without even the decent hypocrify of a change of name —
fhould beard Parliament with its infolent defiance, fhould
raife a revenue for the purpofes of feditious faction, fhould
even make the fhamelefs, but not the imprudent avowal (for
confidence in fuch a cafe is ftrength), that the collection of
this revenue is not merely a contribution for paft or prefent
charges, but a bond of union, and a pledge of future co-

* " The Irifh Aflbciation," often referred to in the courfe
of this work.

250 Mr. Burke and Roman Catholic Relief.

operation — in the revolutionary jargon of the day, it is a
means of organizing and affiliating the people. All this, I
repeat, would not have been endured had Mr. Pitt ftill
guided the helm of government — aye, or any one truly
Britifh ftatefman, who felt himfelf refponfible in his own
individual fame for the refults of the policy which has been
purfued. It was only when we were given over to divided
councils and conflicting principles — worft of all, when the
wretched fyftem was adopted of compromifing all difference
of opinions by adding upon none — of banifhing even the
name of Ireland from the deliberations of our rulers — of
putting off to * a convenient feafon ' the moft perilous and
urgent concerns of that diftra&ed coimtry— -Jtulta dijjimula-
tlone^ remedla potius malorum, quam ma/a, differentes — it was
only then that we reached the full maturity of our prefent
evils — evils fo great, that we can neither bear their prefTure,
nor endure their cure ; but we go on from day to day, from
year to year, feeking, by any wretched noftrum the quackery
of the age can furnifh, to palliate a corroding plague, which
is faft eating to our very vitals."

The conduct of Mr. Burke in reference to the quef-
tion of Roman Catholic relief next pafles in review,
and Dr. Phillpotts maintains that, if that eminent
ftatefman were then alive, he would be adverfe to the
Roman Catholic claims. The evidence which he ad
duces is moft conclufive, and a debt of gratitude is due
to him for refcuing this honoured name from an
aflbciation which he would have been the firft to
difown.

The portion of the letter in which Dr. Phillpotts
applies his preceding argument to the queftion of fur
ther conceflions to the Roman Catholics is mainly
valuable as mowing that he was not averfe to granting

Concejfion and Securities. 25 1

all conceflions, but that he thought that conceflions,
if granted, fhould be accompanied with the moft ample
Jecurities. His language is clear and explicit, and
fhows that he was as thoroughly alive to the aggreflive
fpirit of the Roman Church as he ever had been. It
was afterwards faid that the germs of his fubfequent
alleged change of opinion were to be difcovered in
this letter. But no aflertion could be more ground-
lefs. It is true enough that, in common with moft
other thoughtful men, Dr. Phillpotts faw that the
temporifing policy of Parliament had made further
conceflions inevitable ; but this was a very different
thing from defiring that thofe conceflions mould be
made without fecurity or reftriction. This was what
the Roman Catholics had been aiming at throughout,
and no one was more zealous in denouncing their
machinations, and expofing the infolence of their pre-
tenfions than Dr. Phillpotts. This prefent letter, if
more tedious than his earlier writings, is a proof of
the ftedfaftnefs of his principles, and of the clearnefs
with which he forefaw the impending danger.

The language of the Irifh Roman Catholic clergy
draws from Dr. Phillpotts a ftatement of their fenti-
ments towards the Eftablimed Church, which entitles
him to the thanks of every one who would fhrink
from feeing his country fall a vidlim to a tyranny too
fearful to contemplate. Rightly enough does he de-
fcribe their far-fighted policy, when he fays, —

" With a vigilance that never deeps, with an elafticity
of hope, which no degree of preflure can ever wholly keep

252 Eftimate of Dr. Phillpottf Letter.

down, with a paflionate and anxious longing for the refto-
ration of the power of their Church and of their order —
they never omit a fingle occafion of ferving that holy caufe,
and of preparing for what they confidently expe£t muft one
day happen, its fignal and enduring triumph."

Other topics are handled in this letter; but while
they are always treated with ability, it muft be con-
fefTed that they are fomewhat foreign to the purpofe.
The letter is too diffufe. Written, however, as it was,
one year before the fatal meafure which gave to Roman
Catholics the unreftricted enjoyment of civil privi
leges, it was natural enough that reference mould be
made to topics which might help to awaken the nation
to the greatnefs of the peril. It would have been
wife, however, if the dimensions of the letter had
been curtailed. A volume of 100 pages would have
anfwered all the purpofes of one of 330. But if the
letter is fometimes tedious, it is always candid and
temperate. Facts are never perverted or overftated.
The writing is clear, forcible, and manly, and every
one muft rife from the perufal of this volume with the
conviction that the Author is as deeply verfed in the
conftitutional law of the country as his other pam
phlets have mown him to be in controverfial theology.

253

CHAPTER XVI.

The Death of Lord Liverpool, and its Effefl upon the Roman
Catholic ^uejlion. Minifterial Difficulties. Mr. Canning
appointed Premier. His Death. Lord Goderich's Adminif-
tration. The Duke of Wellington forms a Cabinet. Repeal
of the Tejt and Corporation Afts. Immediately followed by
a Motion to remove Roman Catholic Difabilities. Alarming
State of Ireland. Hostility of the Roman Catholics to the
Adminiflration of the Duke of Wellington. The Irijh AJ/o-
ciation. Rumours of intended ConceJJion to the Roman
Catholics. Subject referred to in the King's Speech. Alarm
and Indignation of the Country. Miniflers denounced. The
Plans of the Duke of Wellington too well laid to beJucceQ*-

fully oppofed. Conduct of the King. EffecJ of the Meafure
on his Title to the Throne. Views of the Supporters of it.
Remarks of Mr. Brougham. Difficulty rof the Pofition ac
knowledged by the Duke of Wellington. Mr. Peel's Motion

for removing Roman Catholic Difabilities. Anxiety of the
Public to hear the Debate. PaJJing of the Bill. Symptoms
of Difaffeflion in the Cabinet. DifmiJJal of Sir Charles
Wetherall. The Bill carried up to the Lords and paj/ed.
Scene in the Houfe. The Royal AJJent given. Conduct of
the King. Termination of this Memorable Conteft. Lord
Eldon's Prophetic Words. Remarks upon the Pajjing of the
Bill.

|UT while the Letters of Dr. Phillpotts
were penetrating to the moft diftant parts
of England, the hopes of the Roman
Catholic party were ftimulated by the ill-
nefs and death of Lord Liverpool,* who for nearly

* He moved an addrefs to the King on the death of the

254 Mr. Canning appointed Premier.

fifteen years had been prime minifter, and had ever
fhown the moft uncompromifing oppofition to their
claims. A ferious difficulty immediately arofe. The
Anti-Catholic part of the miniftry would ferve under
no head who would not pledge himfelf to refift further
conceffion, while the more <c liberal " portion of the
Cabinet, reprefented by Mr. Canning, infifted upon
the nomination of a premier who was known to be
favourable to the Roman Catholic claims. After much
negotiation and delay, Mr. Canning was appointed
prime minifter, and the Duke of Wellington, Lord
Eldon, Mr. Peel, and Lords Bathurft, Melville, and
Weftmoreland retired from the Cabinet. Others were
introduced into their places who were moftly known
to be favourable to Roman Catholic relief; and although
they were not formally pledged to fupport any mea-
fure of conceffion, yet it was commonly felt that the
Roman Catholic afpirations were never fo likely to be
gratified as now. It is probable enough that Mr. Can
ning would have devifed fome fcheme of conceffion —
although it may well be doubted whether he would
have ventured to reproduce that bill which brought
down upon it fuch withering farcafm from Dr. Phill-
potts — but his earthly labours were foon to ceafe. He
was already ftricken with the hand of death, and four
months after his acceffion to office he expired at Chif-

Duke of York, February 12, 1827, and a few days after
wards was feized with paralyfis, which, although not fatal
at the time, entirely prevented him from again attending to
public bufmefs.

D uke of Wellington 's Adminiftration . 255

wick. Thus the " liberal party" was deprived of its
leader, and the Roman Catholic caufe of its champion.
During the fhort tenure of office by Lord Goderich,
who fucceeded Mr. Canning, nothing was done. The
changes were too rapid to admit of thought being
given to any meafure of importance, much lefs to one
of fuch gigantic proportions as the Roman Catholic
queftion had now become.

At the commencement of the year 1828 it became
evident that Lord Goderich's miniftry was expiring,
and that it could not be galvanised into vitality
enough even for it to meet Parliament, which was
appointed to aflemble on the 29th of January. The
conftruction of a new miniftry was therefore entrufted
to the Duke of Wellington, and it was felt that
the hopes of the Roman Catholic party were ex-
tinguiflied.

One of the earlieft Ads of this feffion was the
repeal of the Teft and Corporation Acts which ex
cluded Diflenters from offices of truft and power, and
rendered them incapable of becoming members of any
corporation, unlefs they confented to receive Holy
Communion according to the ritual of the Church of
England. The meafure was introduced by Lord
John Ruflell on the 26th of February, and became of
great importance, as paving the way for the demand
of further conceffions by the Roman Catholics. This
meafure had ever been oppofed by the greateft ftatef-
men as revolutionary and deftructive of the Englifh
Church eftablifhed by law, nor will it be thought that

256 Alarming State of Ireland.

the danger was over-rated when a DifTenting minifter
of eminence had not Templed to declare, in reference
to the projected conceffion, that he had laid a train of
gunpowder under the Church which would blow it
up ; and another Diflenting minifter had blefled God
that he could depart in peace, as the revolution in
France would lead to the deftruclion of all union be
tween Church and State in England.

It was confidered an ominous fign that the arch-
bifhops and moft of the bifhops declared themfelves
in favour of the bill, and the Roman Catholics took
courage. Accordingly, the repeal of the Teft and
Corporation Acts was immediately followed by a mo
tion to remove the remaining Roman Catholic Dif-
abilities, and after a debate it was agreed, on the i6th
of May, that a conference mould be held with the
Houfe of Lords on the fubject. This was held on
the i ^th ; and on the 9th of June the queftion was
taken into confideration by the Houfe of Peers. The
debate lafted two days, and the motion was loft by a
majority of forty-four.

Meanwhile the ftate of Ireland was fuch as to
threaten the utter difruption of fociety in that country.
In defiance of all law, Mr. O'Connell was returned as
member for the county of Clare, and the Irifh Aflbci-
ation declared openly that it would do everything in its
power to prevent the election of every candidate who
would not oppofe the adminiftration of the Duke of
Wellington. Nor were the operations of the Aflbci-
ation confined to any particular locality. Monfter

The Irijh Affectation. 257

meetings were held in the provinces, and county and
parochial clubs were organized.

Nor was this all. Arms were provided, and the
rabble were drilled to military duties. Riots quickly
enfued, and it was hard to fay what would now fatisfy
Roman Catholic rapacity, or where the mifchief would
end.

It was under fuch circumftances as thefe that it
began to be whifpered at the clubs that the Cabinet
had determined on conceflion; and on the 5th of
February, 1829, when Parliament was opened, the
Royal fpeech contained a paragraph recommending it
Cc to review the laws which impofe civil difabilities on
His Majefty's Roman Catholic fubjects." This was,
indeed, preceded by a paragraph which directed atten
tion to the mifdeeds of the Irifh Aflbciation, and called
upon Parliament to affift his Majefty in enforcing the
laws ; but the Roman Catholics could well afford to
put up with this affront upon their favourite inftitu-
tion, when, as Sir Jofeph Yorke truly enough re
marked, " the aflbciation had now nothing to do but
to (hut up its door ; to put one of Bramah's beft
patent locks upon it, and to put the key fomewhere
where it would never be heard of again." This hu
morous fuggeftion was acceded to, and the Irifh Af-
fbciation, after nine-and- twenty years of feditious agi
tation, clofed its meetings not many days afterwards,
with an harangue from O'Connell.

The King's fpeech fell on the country like a
thunderbolt, for there had hitherto been nothing either

s

258 Indignation of the Country.

in the ftate of the queftion itfelf or the attitude of the
minifters to juftify fuch a fudden change of policy.
People began to believe that there was fome truth in
the French faying, " le vrai tfeft pas toujours le vrai-
Jemblable" Thus, then, while the country was brae,
ing its energies to offer a more refolute refiftance to
Roman Catholic aggreffion, than any which had yet
been feen, the minifters were fecretly betraying the
caufe which they had fo long efpoufed, and to which
they were fo deeply pledged. No whifper of their
treachery, however, was permitted to reach the public
ear until the very eve of the aflembling of Parliament,
and their plans were by this time fo ikilfully arranged
that fuccefs could not for a moment be doubtful.
The Duke of Wellington was not the man to do a
thing by halves.

The indignation of the country was extreme. It
felt that it was betrayed by the very perfons who had
hitherto been the ftouteft opponents of any change.
The victory was fecure before the battle had begun,
and although meetings were held in all parts of the
country, and the Houfes of Parliament were deluged
with petitions againft further conceflion, it was felt
that no amount of energy could counteract the mif-
chief which was already done. The condition of the
Anti-Catholic party at this time is well defcribed by
Lord Sidmouth.* " For the firft time in my life I
am difheartened. We feem to be in a mattered boat,

* Pellew's "Life of Lord Sidmouth," vol. iii. p. 427.

Remarks of Mr. Brougham. 259

and in a ftrange and agitated Tea, without pilot, chart,
or compafs." The King too — although, to do him
juftice, he exhibited marked repugnance to the mea-
fure — was placed in a moft painful and anomalous
pofition, fince the project of Emancipation was founded
on afTumptions which, if juft, would have the effect of
rendering much which was done in 1688, and the Act
of Settlement on the Princefs Sophia, and the heirs of
her body being P rot eft ants — the forfeiture of the Crown
by converfion or marriage — altogether unjuft ; and,
as Lord Eldon truly faid, the minifters of the Crown,
in advifing him to confent to Emancipation, as it was
afked, were in reality advifing him to give his aflent
to a libel on his title to the throne.

It is only fair, however, to the promoters of the
meafure to fay that they looked upon it as a political
neceflity. The maintenance of a Cabinet on the prin
ciple of continued refiftance to Roman Catholic claims
was, in their eftimation, impoflible. And nowhere was
this better underftood than on the oppofition benches.

"I contend," faid Mr. Brougham, "that there are no
materials in exiftence for fuch a Cabinet. Suppofing the
right hon. gentleman oppofite (Mr. Peel), unfortunately for
his country, unfortunately for his own reputation, had con
tinued to adhere to his opinion that the claims of the Catho
lics ought never to be liftened to, he alone muft have formed,
of all the perfons here — he alone, with the exception of one
or two other individuals on the bench above him, and with the
exception of one or two noble perfons, members of a Houfe
to which it would be diforderly further to allude — he alone
muft have formed the Cabinet by which continual refiftance
could have been made to the fettlement of the Catholic
queftion."

26 o Mr. Peel's Motion.

To fhow the feelings of the Cabinet on this momen
tous meafure, it will be fufficient to quote the words of
the Duke of Wellington. " This is a bad bufinefs,"
he faid to Lord Sidmouth, the day before Parliament
met, " but we are aground" It is true enough that
the Duke fhortly afterwards difcovered and admitted
that he had been miftaken ; but ftill, for the moment,
there appeared to him to be no door of efcape.

And now the queftion of Roman Catholic relief
was once more to be debated within the walls of Par
liament, and this time with fuch fuccefs as its earlier!
advocates could never have dared to predict. On the
5th of March, Mr. Peel, who had been rejected at
Oxford, but returned for Weftbury, moved " that the
Houfe refolve itfelf into a Committee of the whole
Houfe, to confider the laws impofing civil difabilities
on His Majefty's Roman Catholic fubjects."

So great was the anxiety of the public to hear the
debate on this all-abforbing meafure that every avenue
leading to the Houfe of Commons was crowded before
noon ; and, although the call of the Houfe, moved for
by Lord Chandos, prevented ftrangers being admitted
into the gallery before fix o'clock, yet, fo far from the
excitement having diminimed, the number in atten
dance had gone on fteadily increafing with every hour.
Some ladies of high rank were among the firft to rum
in as foon as the doors were opened, and there they
patiently remained all the night, although feated imme
diately over the principal chandelier, and condemned,
by their own felf-devotion, to fwallow all the poifonous

Faffing of the Bill. 26 1

vapour which arofe from the body of the houfe. Much
time was occupied in the prefentation of petitions ; but
the anxiety which filled every bread to learn " the
grand fecret" could be endured no longer, and the
call for Mr. Peel became loud and general. On his
rifing the deepeft filence prevailed, and, during the
four hours and a quarter for which he fpoke, the
attention of his hearers never feemed to flag. In an
eloquent and elaborate fpeech he reviewed the whole
queftion, and taxed his ingenuity to the utmoft to
mow that the meafure, which he had been fteadily
oppofing for twenty years, was in reality for the benefit
of the nation. On a divifion the motion was carried
by a decifive majority of 188. And here it will be
inftructive to notice that this bill required nofecurities ;
but Roman Catholics might henceforward be admitted
to the higheft offices in the State, with the exception
of the Lord-Lieutenancy of Ireland, and the Chancel-
lorfhip of England, and might hereafter become the
King's advifers.

After pafling through its various ftages, each of
which was fucceflively marked by long and ftormy
debates, the bill was read a third time on the joth of
March, and carried by a majority of 178. The fcene
in the Houfe towards the clofe of the debate was ex
citing in the extreme. The cheering of the fupporters
of the bill was deafening, while upwards of fifty mem
bers from different fides of the Houfe thronged round
Mr. Peel, and fhook hands with him in a cordial and
enthufiaftic manner.

262 Relief Bill paffed in the Houfe of Lords.

The rapidity with which this meafure was hurried
through the Houfe of Commons may well excite
aftonimmentj efpecially when it is remembered that
it effected a greater change in the Conftitution than
anything which had taken place fince the Revolution ;
but the Duke of Wellington, having once decided on
conceffion, was too flcilful a tactician to allow the
country needlefs time for reflection. This was the
more neceflary from fymptoms of lukewarmnefs, if
not of actual difaffection, which had appeared in his
own Cabinet ; and it is not unworthy of remark that
the patting of the bill was fignalifed by the difmifTal
of the Attorney- general (Sir Charles Wetherall) for
having, in no meafured terms of indignation, expofed
the fatal policy of the Minifters, and denounced their
apoftacy.

On the 3 1 ft of March the bill was read a firft time
in the Houfe of Lords. The debate on the fecond
reading commenced on the 2nd of April, and, hav
ing lafted during that and the two following nights,
was carried by a majority of 105. When the im
portance of the fubject is remembered — being nothing
lefs than a change in the Conftitution of the country
— the ability with which the arguments on either fide
were enforced, and the eftimation in which the fpeakers
were held by their refpective parties, this debate may
fairly be confidered one of the moft memorable in the
annals of the nation. The third reading of the bill
was moved by the Duke of Wellington on the roth
of April, when it was carried by a majority of ninety-

Protections of George IV. 263

four, in the fame Houfe which , in the preceding year,
had rejected a fimilar bill by a majority of forty -five.
The Houfe of Lords had never been fo full fince the
Queen's trial. The fpace about the throne and below
the bar was completely crowded, and the body of the
Houfe was filled with peers. All the Royal dukes
were prefent, as was alfo Dr. Doyle, the Roman Ca
tholic bifhop, who had played fo confpicuous a part
in the agitation, and whofe unfcrupulous tactics had
been fo well expofed by Dr. Phillpotts in his Letters
to Mr. Butler and Mr. Canning. Mr. Peel, alfo, was
prefent, and remained in the Houfe during the greater
part of the debate. The Duke of Wellington, who
was the idol of the hour, Lord Grey, and feveral other
peers, were loudly cheered by the populace in Palace
Yard.

The bill received the Royal aflent on April the ijth.
But this was given with no good grace. Opposition
to fuch a meafure had now become the traditionary
policy of the Houfe of Brunfwick, founded, no doubt,
quite as much on political as religious considerations.
If the proteftations of George IV. are to be believed,
he felt all the repugnance to conceflion which his
father and his brother (the late Duke of York) had
mown, and, in a converfation with Lord Eldon, after
the pafling of the meafure,* c< he declared that he had
been moft harfhly and cruelly treated — that he had
been treated as a man whofe confent had been aiked

* Twifs's "Life of Lord Eldon," vol. iii. p. 84.

264 Ceremony of Royal AJJent.

with a piftol pointed to his bread, or as obliged, if
he did not give it, to leap down a five-pair-of-ftairs
window — what could he do ? What had he to fall
back upon?" He then went on to fay,* — "I am
miferable, wretched ; my fituation is dreadful — nobody
about me to advife with. If I do give my aflent, I'll
go to the baths abroad, and from thence to Hanover.
I'll return no more to England — I'll make no Roman
Catholic peers — I will not do what this bill will enable
me to do — I'll return no more — let them get a Catho
lic king in Clarence. The people will fee that I did
not wifh this." But, in fpite of all this, and more,
the aflent was given ; not, indeed, by the King in
perfon, but by a Commiflion, compofed of Lords Lynd-
hurft, Bathurft, and Ellenborough. Very little intereft
was felt in the ceremony. There were fcarcely enough
members of the Houfe of Commons prefent to attend
the Speaker to the Upper Houfe, and amongft them
were no perfons of diftinction or confequence, except
Sir G. Murray. On the Speaker's return there were
about twenty members on each fide of the Houfe;
and, when he announced that the members had been
in the Houfe of Peers to hear the Royal affent given
to the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, there was fome
cheering, in the midft of which a perfon in the fide-
gallery exclaimed, in an audible voice, cc Alas ! they
know not what they do." The meafure, therefore,
had now pafled into law, and the only way in which

* Page 86.

Lord E/ Jon's Prophetic Words. 265

the King could foothe his wounded feelings was by
fhowing marked incivility at the following levee to all
who had voted for it.

Thus ended the memorable conteft which had fo
long agitated the country from one end to the other,
and the magnitude of which it would be difficult to
exaggerate. It was the confcioufnefs of the fatal con-
cefTion which was being made that wrung from Lord
Eld on the indignant declaration, that if he had a voice
that would found to the remoteft corner of the Empire,
he would re-echo the principle which he moft firmly
believed — that if ever a Roman Catholic was permitted
to form part of the legiflature of this country, or to
hold any of the great executive offices of the Govern
ment, from that moment the fun of Great Britain would
be fet. In defiance of all remonftrance, however, and
as if in derifion of all prophetic forebodings, the mea-
fure was carried with a high hand ; not, indeed, by its
original promoters, but by thofe who had hitherto
mown it the moft uncompromifing oppofition. Thus,
then, the Roman Catholic hopes were crowned with
fuccefs. The greatnefs of their victory was the prefage
of ftill more unbounded triumphs. Time was when
after the firft conceffions they were called ungrateful,
becaufe they afked for frefh ones. Scarcely a voice
was then raifed in their favour, and they themfelves had
hardly learnt to feel any confidence in their ftrength.
By degrees, however, they became confcious of latent
power ; that power was foftered and matured by ex
ternal fympathy ; firft of all they were pitied, then they

266 Concluding Remarks.

were liftened to ; they quickly mowed themfelves no
contemptible opponents ; they made themfelves feared,
and now behold them in their hour of victory ! Thus
it was, then, that — " Roman Catholics were made
members of that legiflature, which, by their religioi
tenets, they pronounce to be impious and heretical
governors of that people which they pronounce to be
incapable of falvation ; arbiters of that civil and reli
gious freedom which it is the firft principle of Popery
to extinguifh in all kingdoms, and counfellors of that
King whom Rome denounces as a revolter from its
fealty and religion."*

The courfe of events has been fomewhat anticipated,
in order to bring the Roman Catholic queftion to a
conclufion ; and now it will be necefTary to return to
Dr. Phillpotts.

* Croly's « Life of George IV," p. 492.

267

CHAPTER XVII.

Dr. Phillpotts appointed Dean of Chefter. Suit In the Ecclefi-
ajllcal Court againft one of the Prebendaries. Ability dlf-
played by Dr. Phillpotts. Accufed of having changed his
Opinion on the Roman Catholic Quejllon. Odium excited by
the Charge. Article In the Edinburgh Review. The Falfity
of Its Allegations Jhown. Dr. Phillpotts not a Clerical Agi
tator. His Vote for Mr. Peel at the Oxford Election ofi 829.
Petition from the Dean and Chapter ofCheJhr againft Roman
Catholic Relief Bill. Letter to Dr. Ellerton. Remarks of
the Times. Motives which guided Dr. Phillpotts In 'voting
for Mr. Peel. His Opinion on the Roman Catholic Queftlon
unchanged. Mr. Peel' 's Change of Sentiment. Hard to eftl-
mate it aright at the Time. Fury of the Clergy. Combi
nation of High and Low Church againft Mr. Peel. The
Vote of Dr. Phillpotts given with pain. Ejlrangement from
Old Friends. Mr. Peel's Rejection. Satire and Rude Cari
catures. Specimen ofVerfes. The Conduct of Dr. Phillpotts
in reference to the Roman Catholic Queftlon In 1 8 12. Not
an Advocate for Entire Exclufion. Meeting of the Clergy and
Refolution. His Amendment. His Views continued un
changed. Reafon of the Malice of his Adverfaries.

ND now the labours of Dr. Phillpotts in
refitting the claims of the Roman Catholics
were about to receive a fubftantial and
appropriate recognition. The Deanery
of Chefter having become vacant by the promotion of
Dr. Copleftone to the See of Llandaff, that office was
conferred upon him, and he was inftituted to it on the
ijth of May, 1828. He continued to hold it until
his elevation to the Epifcopal Bench in 1831. It was

268 Dr. Phillpotts Dean of Chejler.

remarked at the time of his inftallation that both in
perfon and voice he very clofely refembled a former
dean, the Rev. Dr. Hodgfon — afterwards Dean of
Carlifle.

No incidents of local intereft occurred while Dr.
Phillpotts held the Deanery of Chefter, except the
conduct of a difficult and complicated fuit carried on
in the Ecclefiaftical and Civil Courts againft one of the
prebendaries, who had leafed away part of the land
attached to his prebendal houfe for building purpofes.
This fuit was commenced by Dr. Copleftone while
Dean of Chefter, and tranfmitted by him to his
fucceflbr. The extreme acutenefs and readinefs of
reply which were manifested by Dean Phillpotts, on
fome occafions on which he was fuddenly called upon
to give an immediate anfwer to difficult queftions of
law or logic at the chapter meetings, were long re
membered. The fuit, however, pofTefles no intereft to
the public.

It was while Dr. Phillpotts was Dean of Chefter
that the meafure for the relief of Roman Catholics was
carried ; * and it was now that he was accufed of having
facrificed the convictions of a life for the fake of a
mitre, which was to be the price of his perfidy. The
odium created by this charge has lafted till the prefent
day ; common juftice, therefore, demands that its truth
or falfity fhould be eftablifhed.

Among the many periodicals which from time to

* See page 262.

Article in "Edinburgh Review." 269

time have lent themfelves to the propagation of this
hideous charge, the Edinburgh Review may perhaps
be ranked as the firft, both from its extenfive circu
lation and the credit of its writers. The opinions of
this Journal, therefore, may well be allowed to do duty
for the reft. In an article for 1852, the favage vin-
dictivenefs of which does as little credit to the heart of
the writer, as its gigantic distortions do to his love of
truth, the following occurs : —

" The Government which carried Catholic Emancipation
was a Tory Government ; and Tory ftatefmen naturally
defired to avert the lofs of that clerical fupport on which
their power had fo mainly depended ; they knew the preju
dices of the clergy, and felt how much they would be {hocked
by the paffing of the meafure ; and they reafonably wifhed to
fecure the fupport of that one of its moft prominent ecclefi-
aftical opponents, who had oppofed it efpecially on religious
grounds, and bad moft fuccefs fully enlifted clerical pafjions againft
it. His converfion and his arguments, it was hoped, might
convince, or at leaft filence many who hitherto had hung fo
fondly on his words. Accordingly, the converfion of Dr.
Phillpotts was effected at this critical juncture. He wrote in
favour of the Bill, and he voted for the author of the Bill, at the
memorable Oxford election of 1829."

Now, if thefe charges were true, Dr. Phillpotts
would, indeed, have been all and more than his anony
mous defamer had wifhed to make him out to be.
But the writer allowed his fpleen to carry him altogether
out of the limits of truth, and having once fairly ftarted
in the congenial region of romance, a powerful fancy,
ftimulated by an atrabilious difpofition and impetuous

270 Dr. Phillpotts not

temper, hurried him to lengths of inveftive which are
happily unknown to lefs afpiring critics.

But falfe and cruel as thefe charges were, they claim
"a notice — more, however, for the fake of that diftin-
guifhed Magazine which permitted its pages to be
fullied by the calumny, than for his who could profti-
tute mental powers of no mean order for the fake of
indulging a paltry fpite.

It happens, then, that Dr. Phillpotts had not oppofed
the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, cc efpecially on reli
gious grounds," in the fenfe imputed to him by the
reviewer, nor had he " fuccefsfully enlifted clerical
paffions againft it."

The fact was that Mr. Canning and others had fo
blended the theological and political afpects of the
queftion together that it was not eafy to deal with one
without the other. Nor was this confined to Parlia
ment. Every tavern orator who darned into the quef
tion imagined himfelf an Aquinas or a Luther as the
Catholic or Proteftant fcale preponderated. Like the
figure of Fortune, then, the queftion had two faces,
the religious and civil, and fo dexteroufly was the image
turned about that you could not always tell which face
it was that was looking at you. Both, moreover, had
become fo battered and dirty by ill-ufage that the
delufion was helped in this way. Meanwhile, as the
figure revolved, the perpetual cry of its attendant
priefts was for cc toleration ;" a happily chofen word,
as ambiguous as the refponfes of the oracle of old, and
which might well do duty either for religion or poli
tics, as need mould arife.

: a Clerical Agitator. 271

Dr. Phillpotts was one of the firft to fee through
this miferable trickery. But what could he do ?
There was the queftion in a hopelefs tangle. Alexan
der himfelf might have found a difficulty in cutting
the knot. If a hoft of fpeakers and writers perfifted
in thrufting forward theological arguments in favour of
political meafures, was Dr. Phillpotts to be blamed if
he mowed that their theology was about as profound
as their pretenfion to political knowledge ? The tafk
was not one of his own feeking, neither was it an
agreeable one. It was forced upon him ; and to the
laft he viewed it as a hard neceflity. Of all men
living, however, he was probably the beft qualified to
perform it. With a quicknefs of perception and a
fteadinefs of purpofe which were abfolutely marvel
lous, he threaded his way through the mazes of this
dreary controverfy. If his opponents, as in the cafe
of Mr. C. Butler and Dr. Doyle, infifted upon throw
ing down the gauntlet of religious argument, he could
not do lefs than ftoop to take it up. But it was only
to difarm a mifchievous adverfary, and not to conftitute
himfelf the leader of a clerical faction. If, then, the
clergy learnt to refpect his talents, Mr. Butler and the
reft were to be thanked for having called forth their
difplay. And there the matter ended ; for he was not
qualified to become the leader of his brethren. Largely
as he could fympathize with them in their efforts
againft Roman Catholic aggreflion, yet widely did he
differ from them as to the way in which that aggref-
fion was to be met. And this will prefently be feen.

272 Remarks of the

But if the charge of being a clerical agitator brought
Dr. Phillpotts into difcredit, the vote which he gave in
favour of Mr. Peel at the memorable Oxford election of
1829, tended ^ more to inflame tne prejudice which
was already excited againft him. Early in that year
it began to be rumoured that he had feen reafon to
change his opinions on the queftion of Roman Catho
lic relief. The Times of February 3, gave publicity to
this rumour, and fpoke of the " fpiteful dean who
fo maligned the illuftrious Canning upon this very
queftion," having cc wheeled to the right about, as if
by military command." He was alfo accufed of being
the author of the forthcoming bill. And yet at this
very time a petition to Parliament was being prepared
by the Dean and Chapter of Chefter, bearing upon it
evidence of Dr. Phillpotts* mafterly pen, in which, in
his character as dean, he protefts againft " the extra
vagant demands of the Roman Catholics of Ireland,"
and declares that cc no fcheme of fecurities has yet
been brought forward which feems in any tolerable
degree adequate to its profefTed object." Surely this
was not the language of a man who had changed his
principles, and was now ready to admit the Roman
Catholics to civil privileges without any fecurities
at all. The intimation of his intentions in reference
to the forthcoming election is contained in the follow
ing letter to Dr. Ellerton, Tutor of Magdalene Col
lege, Oxford, dated the 2oth of February, 1829: —

" Dear Sir, I have received the favour of your letter, con
taining the recorded judgment of many moft refpe&able

Letter to Dr. Ellerton. 273

members of the Univerfity of Oxford, that Mr. Peel is unfit
to be * re-elected at the prefent crifis,' and inviting me to
vote for Sir Robert Inglis.

" On every perfonal and public ground I rejoice at the
felection of fuch a candidate by the opponents of Mr. Peel.
Sir Robert Inglis is one of my beft and moft valued friends ;
a man of the higheft character, and honourably diftinguimed
by his zeal and ability in defence of our Proteftant Con-
ftitution.

" But I am fure you will perceive that my vote, on this
occafion, muft be decided by one fpecial confideration.
Thofe with whom you act have, in a direct and manly man
ner, brought the matter to this iflue, — ' Is Mr. Peel unfit to
be re-elected at the prefent crifis ?' I do not think that he
is. I will not, therefore, aflift in cafhiering him.

" And now let me trouble you with a few words refpedt-
ing myfelf.

" You fay, c reports are circulated here (Oxford) in re-
fpedt to a change of your opinions on a fubject on which you
have written fo ably and fo much. We are unwilling to give
credit to fuch rumours/

" I thank you, and whoever elfe joins you in this fenti-
ment, for your unwillingnefs to give credit to anything which
you may think difcreditable to me. In the prefent inftance,
the rumours you refer to, as far as they have reached me,
are either fo vague as to be unintelligible to me, or, if they
aflume the fliape of an allegation of facts, are abfolutely falfe.

" As to my opinions, they remain unchanged ; they accord
with the fpirit of my Letter to Mr. Canning, pages 158 — 164,
and more efpecially with c Application of the Argument,' in
my Letter on the Coronation Oath, pages 176 — 180. If
any of thofe who have done me the honour of reading thefe
works have happened to attend to fuch parts only of them
as fell in with their own preconceived opinions, it is rather
hard that I fhould be made anfwerable for their inadvertence.
Be this as it may, I have the gratification of knowing that

274 Letter to Dr. Ellerton.

the moft diftinguifhed of the names in the printed papers
you have fent to me are not in this error. They have ftated
(as I doubt not you have heard), in voluntary vindication of
an abfent and flandered friend, that my writings had pre
pared them to expect that I fhould be favourable to the ad-
juftment of the Roman Catholic queftion, on terms compati
ble with the fecurity of the Proteftant Conftitution.

" Whether the bill about to be brought into Parliament
be of this character I do not know. If I fhall deem it fuch
(and I heartily wifh I may fee reafon to do fo), I (hall not be
deterred by clamour, in any quarter, from avowing my
opinion ; if otherwife, I {hall not be backward in joining in
any fit mode of expreffing diflatisfa&ion.

" For the prefent, I content myfelf with citing to you,
and to every one who may feel an intereft in what concerns
me, a fmgle fentence (pages 179, 180), in my Letter, pub-
limed laft year on the Coronation Oath, — a fentence which
Mr. Wilmot Horton has with very good reafon publicly
treated as an invitation (he himfelf calls it a challenge), to
confider the matter of Securities on both fides : —

" ' In one word, then, fee whether you (the Roman Ca
tholics) can ofFer us any real and adequate Security for our
Church, if the boon you afk be granted ; or try to find the
Securities which we^ on our part^ may devife^ fuch as you can
confcientioufly accede to.'

" Whether the writer of this fentence can be juftly
charged with inconfiftency, for now teftifying, or acting
upon, a wifh, that adequate Securities may be propofed, is a
queftion which I will not infult your underftanding by
afking you.

" You are at perfect liberty to confider this as a public
Letter.

" I am, dear Sir,

" Your faithful Servant,

" HENRY PHILLPOTTS."

Remarks of the " Times." 275

That this letter fhould have been regarded as evi
dence of defection from a caufe which he had ferved
fo long and fo well, may reafonably excite aftonimment
in an unprejudiced mind. The Times of February 24,
1829, truly enough fays : —

" For the future it can only be wilful and obftinate per-
verfenefs that would charge him with having been hoftile to
conceflion upon any terms ; but unprejudiced men could
never have fallen into that error, on reading the Letter to
which we have alluded,* if it had been conceived and
written in a milder temper, and had treated the illuftrious
ftatefman (as he deferved) with refpecl:. However, people
may now abufe Dr. Phillpotts as they pleafe for fupporting Mr.
Peel, if that be matter of reproach ; but * till they can rail
the feal from off the bond/ — till they can obliterate what he
has previoufly written — it muft be impudently and glaringly
falfe in them to tax him with * change of opinions.' '

The motives which guided him in recording his
vote in favour of Mr. Peel are fupplied by Dr. Phill
potts himfelf in a letter to Sir Robert Inglis, written
many years later: —

" It had been, and ftill is, the honourable diftin&ion of
the Univerfity of Oxford, when once it has ele&ed a Re-
prefentative in Parliament, to continue to him the undif-
turbed poffeffion of his feat, unlefs he mould forfeit the con
fidence of his conftituents by fome flagrant departure from
the principles which ought to actuate public men. Upon
this occafion, the queftion, which was to decide the votes
of the electors, was not whether they approved the bill
which had been parted, but whether Sir Robert Peel had, by
introducing it, deferved to forfeit the confidence of his con-

* The Firft Letter to Mr. Canning.

276 Mr. Peel's Change of Sentiment.

ftituents. It was my undoubting judgment that he had not,
and I felt myfelf bound to vote for him accordingly, in op-
pofition to the wifhes and judgment of many whom I moft
valued. I knew (or believed on grounds as fatis factory as
knowledge) that Sir Robert Peel had been brought to a con
viction of the impossibility of any longer effectually refitting
the demand for conceflion to the Roman Catholics. I knew
that he had ftated this his conviction to King George IV,
and, having ftated it, had entreated permiflion to refign his
office — thinking it better for his Majefty's fervice that the
meafure fhould be carried by ftatefmen who had always fup-
ported it, than by thofe who had hitherto refifted it. I
knew that the King had refufed the permiffion which was
alked, and had required that thofe minifters who had advifed
the neceflity of conceffion, fhould themfelves give him their
fervices in effecting it. Sir Robert Peel, in yielding to his
Sovereign's very reafonable demand, thought it right to give
to his conftituents an opportunity of declaring whether he
had thereby forfeited their confidence. As one of thefe
conftituents, honouring the integrity with which I knew he
had acted, I deemed it my very plain duty to teftify that
feeling by continuing to vote for him."

There is a manly tone about this ftatement which
muft commend itfelf to every unprejudiced mind.
Voting for Mr. Peel did not nece(Tarily entail any
fupport of Roman Catholic claims. The opinion of
Dr. Phillpotts on the great queftion of conferring upon
Roman Catholics a mare of the legiflature, without
exacting from them ample fecurities, remained un
changed, and the vote which he felt bound to record
in favour of Mr. Peel did not affect it. That a change
of fentiment had unhappily found favour with that
diftinguifhed ftatefman is known to every one, and

Combination againft him. 277

after a lapfe of more than thirty years the motives
which influenced his conduct can be accurately weighed
and appreciated. But when men's paflions were in
flamed to a degree almoft beyond precedent — when
O'Connell was declaiming in the Rotunda at Dublin,
and Moore was finging his patriotic fongs in the
drawing-rooms of the Weft End — when, in a word, a
Roman Catholic fever of unprecedented virulence
feemed to have feized upon the country, and was
rapidly approaching its crifis, it was not eafy — it was
not poflible — to do juftice to this gifted man. Hence,
many of the clergy, frefh from remote country parimes,
were furious, and haftened up to Oxford to record
their indignant votes againft him. Never before,
perhaps, was there fo extraordinary an exhibition of
the violent temper of partifans, as in the fcene which
then took place. High and Low Church forgot the
differences of a lifetime in a coalition againft the
cc Ifcariot of the age," for fo Mr. Peel was fome-
what profanely called. Living out of the world, as
many of the clergy did, and juftly meriting the re
proach of Dr. Arnold,* that they were wanting in
acquired knowledge and impartiality, they were as yet
unconfcious of the tide of popular feeling which had
fet in fo ftrongly. Dr. Phillpotts, however, and others
like him, while they mrank from the idea of concef-
fion without fecurities, could yet honour the ftatefman,

* " The Chriftian Duty of granting the Claims of the
Roman Catholics," &c.

27 8 Painful Effetts of Voting for Mr. Peel.

who, unable to refift his convictions, had laid his office
at the feet of his Sovereign. For eighteen years he
had offered an uncompromifing, but a temperate, fair,
and conftitutional refiftance to making any further
conceflions to the Roman Catholics ; it could have
been no light motive, therefore, which impelled him
to abandon principles of which he had for fo long
been the acknowledged and honoured champion. But
what wonder is it that Mr. Peel mould have fuccumbed
to what he regarded as a ftern neceffity, when fuch a
man as Lord Eldon, the hope and buttrefs of the old
Tory party, could fay on the eve of the meafure being
carried, " We mall fight refpectably and honourably,
but we mall be in a wretched minority ; but what is
moft calamitous of all is, that the Archbijhops and
fever al of the Bijhops are againft us"

It is only due to Dr. Phillpotts to fay that the
vote which he recorded upon this occafion gave him
much pain, and caufed an eftrangement from old and
valued friends, — a circumftance which may well recall
the memory of more recent Oxford elections, when a
ftatefman as diftinguifhed as Mr. Peel, and once the
cherimed reprefentative of the moft Confervative body
in England, faw his former fupporters ftand aloof, if
not foremoft in the oppoflng ranks. Ill muft it be
for him if he read not in the paft the tokens of his
future difmiflal !

If anything could have added to the pain with
which Dr. Phillpotts gave his vote, it was the fact
that he found himfelf in opposition to his revered

His Rejection. 279

friend Dr. Routh, Prefident of Magdalene College,
who nominated Sir Robert Inglis. But this was not
all. He voted on the lofing fide, Mr. Peel having
been rejected by a majority of 146, after a conteft of
three days, during which 1364 votes were polled.
This pofition, agreeable at no time, was rendered
doubly trying when rude fatire and coarfe invective
were liberally employed to hold the haplefs voter up
to ridicule.

Thus, while Mr. Peel was figuring in a caricature
which reprefented Canning emerging from a tomb,
and purfuing him with the words, cc I am avenged !"
the bookfellers' (hops were crowded with prints of
" the great rat," as Dr. Phillpotts was called, with
more of Fefcennine humour than truth. Squibs alfo,
more or lefs highly feafoned to fuit the public tafte,
were handed about from one common room to the
other. The following ipecimen will fuffice : —

" I faw a Bifhop in a confternation
Refpe&ing a fcrap of erroneous Latin,
Thinking about ' a new tranflation,'
And afking what was the Greek for ' ratting.*
I faw a man with a (hovel-hat,
One who knows full well what's what ;
c Sir,' he faid, c among my fancies
I've been poring o'er S. Francis,
And much light — much light — I've had ;
Really 'tis not half fo bad.
Truly, Sir, I can't but feel
(My refpefts to Mr. Peel),
Oftentimes, dear Sir, and long
I have done the Papifts wrong ;

280 Conduct of Dr. Phillpotts in reference

And I'll haften to repair it,
For I know not how to bear it."

But there is another charge againft Dr. Phillpotts ;
that of having " moft fuccefsfully enlifted clerical paf-
fions " againft the bill for Roman Catholic relief. This
has already been referred to.* And here, again, he had
much to complain of. So far from having arTumed
the character of a clerical agitator, for motives of
worldly gain, as was pretty broadly hinted, he in
reality refujed to take any fart in the petitions againft
the meafure which were fent up to Parliament from
his own Diocefe. The great body of the clergy, in
the excefs of their fears, believed that the only fecurity
againft the aggrefllons of the Roman Catholics was
entire exclufion from civil privileges. Meetings in'the
feveral Archdeaconries and Rural Deaneries were haftily
convened, and refolutions pafTed which often exhibited
more zeal than difcretion. But Dr. Phillpotts faw
that the day for exclufion was paft, and that all that
remained was to exact fuch fecurities from the Roman
Catholics as might enfure their loyal and peaceable
behaviour. So long ago as the year 1812, when the
Bifhop of Durham (Dr. Barrington) had exprefled a
defire that a Petition mould be prefented to Parliament
from the Clergy of his Diocefe againft the bill which
Mr. Canning was about to introduce, Dr. Phillpotts
told him, in the moft ftraightforward manner, that his
own opinion was in favour of conceflion if accompanied
by adequate fecurities. A meeting was convened by

* See pages 270, 271.

to the Roman Catholic Queftion. 28 1

the Archdeacon, and the petition having been moved
and feconded, an amendment was propofed by Dr.
Phillpotts, exprefling confidence in Parliament that no
fuch bill would receive its fupport, unlefs due Jecurities
were 'provided for the Church, and its permanent con
nection with the State. The amendment was carried.

That thefe views continued to actuate him' will be
feen from an examination of his letters to Earl Grey,
and Mr. Butler, as alfo his more recent letter on
the Coronation Oath. In each of thefe conceflion is
treated as poffible — with the fafeguard of fufficient
fecurities.

And yet, in the face of this explicit declaration^ of
his fentiments, his motives were traduced and his
character for honefty was impugned. The truth is,
his aflailants had adopted fo much of his writings as
they faw fit, and eagerly thruft them forward as favour
ing their doctrine of entire exclufion. But when Dr.
Phillpotts declared that fuch were not his views, and
that he was not averfe to an adjuftment of the Roman
Catholic queftion, provided that fufficient fecurities
could be offered, their indignation knew no bounds,
and they pretended to fay that they had been betrayed.
No charge could be more unfounded. Few men
acted with confiftency equal to that of Dr. Phillpotts,
throughout the whole of this trying controverfy, and
no one had to make greater facrifices to the fincerity
of his convictions.

It will be neceflary to return to this fubject further
on in this volume.

282

CHAPTER XVIIL

Dr. Phil/potts appointed Bijhop of Exeter. His Election by
the Chapter. Petition of the Inhabit ants of Stanhope againft
that Living being held in commendam with the Bijhopric.
Great Excitement in the Country. The Petition confidered.
Stanhope had previoujly been held in commendam by three
Prelates. Spoliation of the See of Exeter at the Reforma
tion. Examples of Bijhops of Exeter who had held Livings
in commendam. If a Living were to be held with
BiJhopnC) fpecial reafons why it Jhould be Stanhope. Dr.
Phillpotts refufed to accept the See of Exeter unlefs he were
permitted to hold Stanhope. Sir James Graham9 s Notice of
Motion. Change of Government. New Miniftry refufe to
allow Dr. Phillpotts to hold Stanhope. The Hardjhip con-
fejfed. Promt fe of Further Preferment. Manner In which
the Arrangement was carried out. Petition of Clergy of
Exeter againft the Appointment of Dr. Phillpotts to that See.
His alleged Change of Sentiment on the Roman Catholic
Quejiion. Exculpatory Statement by Sir H. Hardinge.
The Charge revived by Lord Radnor. Appeal of the Bijhop

to the Duke of Wellington. His Grace* s Reply , fully excul
pating him from the Charge.

T the clofeof the following year, (1830,)
Dr. Chriftopher Bethell, having been
tranflated from Exeter to Bangor, the
former See was offered to Dr. Phillpotts
by the Duke of Wellington, and accepted by him.
On the 1 1 th of November the King was pleafed to
order a conge d'elire to pafs the Great Seal, empower
ing the Dean and Chapter of Exeter to choofe a bimop;

Dr. Phillpotts Bijhop of Exeter. 283

and on the 22nd of the fame month Dr. Phillpotts was
elecfted, the confirmation taking place on the 9th of
December following.

But no fooner svas it known that he was to be ele
vated to the Epifcopal Bench than fome of the in
habitants of Stanhope prefented a petition to the King,
praying that that important living might not be held
in commendam with the diftant See of Exeter. The
movement was fet on foot by a Mr. Rippon, who
headed a fmall party of the moft violent Anti-Church
fection of the parifhioners that could be colle<5ted.
Thofe were the days when it was eafy enough to excite
clamour againft a clergyman, more particularly one fb
diftinguifhed as Dr. Phillpotts. Hence it was that
this otherwife mfignificant memorial created great ex
citement in the country ; and as Dr. Phillpotts' conduct
was very feverely canvafTed, it will be well to take a
difpaflionate furvey of the circumftances of the cafe.

The chief points in the petition of the inhabitants
of Stanhope were — ist, That "the population of which
the rector has the fpiritual care confifts of 12,000 in
habitants." 2nd, That " he delegates the fpiritual care
of thefe 1 2,000 fouls to a hireling." 3rd, That " the
parim pays him a tithe of 4OOO/. a-year, and therefore
may claim the advantages of a refident redtor."

Suppofing thefe allegations to have been true, it
muft be confefled that the people of Stanhope had good
caufe to complain. But, unfortunately for the credit
of their petition, the memorialifts had allowed their
antipathy to Dr. Phillpotts to carry them into the

284 Petition of Inhabitants of Stanhope.

region of romance. Thus, the population was ftated
as 12,000, while the cenfus preceding Dr. Phillpotts'
appointment gave the number as 4600 lefs, and of the
remainder nearly 5000 were not under the fpiritual
care of the Rector of Stanhope at all, but belonged to
an ancient chapelry, which had its own minifter, and
its own endowment, and was in all refpects an inde
pendent benefice. A fecond incumbency had recently
been erected within the limits of that chapelry ; and
although the Rector of Stanhope had the right of pre-
fentation to thefe cures, yet they were wholly inde
pendent of him. This left Dr. Phillpotts with the
charge of about 3000 fouls, being 9000 lefs than
ftated in the memorial. After this mis-ftatement it
might be thought to be fcarcely worth while to invef-
tigate the other allegations, were it not to mow the
fpirit in which the petition was conceived, and the
amount of attention which was due to it.

The fecond point of the petition was that the rector
" delegates the fpiritual care of 1 2,000 inhabitants to
a hireling." The object of this was to infmuate that
Dr. Phillpotts was never refident on his benefice ; than
which nothing could be more untrue. Inftead, however,
of the charge being delegated " to a hireling," two
refident curates were employed, both of them men of
education and high character. When his own fervices
are added, it muft be confefled that the fpiritual wants
of the people of Stanhope were not inadequately pro
vided for.

The third point was that cc the parifh pays to the

Revenues of the Living. 285

rector a tithe of 4OOO/. per annum, and therefore has
a right to the advantages of a refident re<5tor." This
allegation was as unfounded as the others, for, although
the income of Stanhope was large, yet the fum paid
by the parimioners to the rector did not exceed 6oo/.
per annum !

The pecuniary calculations of the memorialifts
were, therefore, as much at fault as their ftatiftics.
The truth was that the bulk of the emoluments of the
living arofe from an ancient donation of the See of
Durham, which conferred on the Rector of Stanhope
a portion of the ore raifed in the lead mines of the See
fituate within the parim. At the time of Dr. Phill-
potts' appointment this amounted to about jooo/. per
annum. The chief part of the income of Stanhope,
therefore, was taken from the revenues of the See of
Durham, and not from the tithe paid by the parim
ioners ; and fince Stanhope was occafionally held in
commend am, that See was made to contribute fomething
from its princely revenue to a poorer bimopric.
Whether this might not have been arranged in a way
lefs likely to caufe fcandal is, of courfe, a ferious quef-
tion : but the fact remains. It was the Bifliop of
Durham who mainly contributed to the endowment of
Stanhope, and not the farijhioners, as was alleged.

Neither was it an unufual circumftance that Stan
hope mould be held in commendam with a bifhopric.
That living had been held in this way by three pre
lates who were the immediate predeceflbrs of Dr.
Phillpotts. Bifhop Butler (the author of the Ana-

286 Livings held " in commendam "

logy}, who held it with the See of Brifrol, Bifhop
Keene with the See of Chefter, and Bifhop Thurlow
with the See of Lincoln. Now it is well known that
the See of Exeter was fpoiled of much of its revenue
in the reigns of Edward VI. and Elizabeth, and al
though many people might be inclined to think that
ayoo/. a-year, with an epifcopal palace, and a feat in
the Houfe of Lords, is a fufficient worldly provifion
for a follower of Him who had not where to lay His
head ; yet this idea does not feem to have found much
favour with the Bifhops of Exeter, for during this
century three of them have held important livings in
addition to their See. Bifhop Courtenay was rector
of S. George's Hanover Square, containing 43,936
inhabitants, as fcandalous a cafe as any on record.
Bifhop Pelham held a parim in SufTex of 1907 inha
bitants, while Dr. Bethell, the immediate predeceflbr
of Dr. Phillpotts, held a living in the ftill more remote
county of Yorkfhire, containing 841 inhabitants. It
was plain, then, that Dr. Phill potts, in feeking to in-
creafe his epifcopal income, was only following the ex
ample of his predeceflbrs, and the people of Stanhope
were no worfe off than they had often been before.
No doubt it is much to the difadvantage of any pariih
to be deprived of the fuperintendence of its rector,
and it is a happy thing for the Church that the abufes
of paft generations are no longer pofllble. The com
plaints embodied in the petition of the people of Stan
hope, however, were not borne out by fact. It would,
indeed, have been a noble act, and one which in days

by Bifhops of Exeter. 287

when it was the fafhion to feoff at holy things, would
have tended much to elevate his order in the eyes of
the people, if the newly- elected Bifhop of Exeter had
declared his intention of claiming nothing but the re
venues of his See. It would have been a proof, fuch
as the multitude could underftand, that when a man
gave up a living of 4OOO/. a-year, befides a deanery,
for a bifhopric whofe value was under jooo/., there
was fomething more intended by the Epifcopal office
than that it mould open the door to opulence. On
the other hand, it muft be remembered that Dr. Phill-
potts had at this time a large family growing up, and
it would be a ferious queftion with every prudent
parent as to whether he were juftified in accepting a
dignity which at the fame time deprived him of half
his income. But if a living was to be held in com-
mendam with the Bifhopric of Exeter, there were fpecial
reafons why that living mould be Stanhope. When
Dr. Phillpotts was prefented to that benefice he was
required by the Bifhop of Durham, who was the
patron, to build a parfonage-houfe. The coft of this,
together with a refidence for the curates which was
alfo built, amounted to i2,ooo/., and this fum was
not charged upon the living, but was defrayed by Dr.
Phillpotts himfelf. It may, perhaps, be thought an
exceflive fum for the erection of a glebe houfe ; but
then the very largenefs of the amount is a proof of
the liberality with which Dr. Phillpotts difpenfed his
income. He might have died as foon as the houfe
was completed, and then his fuccefTor would have been

288 Permiffion to hold Stanhope.

provided with a noble refidence without the living
being burdened to the extent of a fingle penny. The
fact, then, that he had funk property in Stanhope, to
the extent of about 6oo/. per annum, was a reafonable
ground for requiring that if any living were to be
held with his bifhopric, that living fhould be Stanhope.

Nor muft it be fuppofed that the defire to hold
Stanhope in commendam with the See of Exeter was
an afterthought on the part of Dr. Phillpotts. As
foon as ever it was notified to him that it was the
King's intention to raife him to the Epifcopal Bench
he ftated, with the utmoft opennefs, that he fhould
be unable to accept the dignity, if he was not allowed
to retain his living. His propofal was afTented to,
and he was informed that orders would be given to
prepare the proper inftruments to enable him to
retain Stanhope, upon which he immediately accepted
the offer of promotion. But before this arrangement
could be carried out a change of government had
occurred.

Meanwhile, the matter was brought before Parlia
ment, and, on November the loth, Sir R. Peel ftated, in
reply to a queftion from Mr. Beaumont, that it was
the intention of government to allow the Bifhop of
Exeter to hold Stanhope in commendam. Upon this
Sir James Graham gave notice that he fhould move
an addrefs to the King on the fubjecT:. The next
night Lord Belgrave, on behalf of Dr. Phillpotts, re-
quefted the Houfe to fufpend their judgments on the
matter until a future night, when a ftatement would

Bi/hop Phillpotts not to hold Stanhope. 289

be made. Meanwhile, he hoped that thefe ex parte
allegations which had appeared in the newspapers,
and elfewhere, and to which it was evident that Dr.
Phillpotts could not reply, might not be allowed to
bias the judgments of thofe whofe duty it would be
to pronounce upon the cafe. On November the 22nd
the promifed Statement was made in the Houfe by
Mr. Phillpotts, Member for Gloucefter, the bifhop's
eldeft brother, relative to Stanhope ; and on December
the 9th, in reply to a queftion by Mr. C. Wynne, Lord
Althorp replied, on behalf of the new Government,
that his Majefty's Minifters, upon finding a great ob
jection prevailing throughout the country on the fub-
ject of the living of Stanhope being held in com-
mendam with the See of Exeter, had felt it their duty
to advife his Majefty to abftain from ifluing the in-
ftruments required for that purpofe. The truth was
that Sir James Graham — who had a notice on the
order-book of the Houfe of a motion for an Addrefs
to the Crown praying that leave might not be granted
to hold Stanhope in commendam — had now become a
member of the new Cabinet ; and this circumftance
made it impoflible to grant Dr. Phillpotts permiflion
to hold the bifliopric and the living together. On
the other hand, it was reprefented by Dr. Phillpotts to
Earl Grey, that, if permiflion to retain the living were
withheld, the income of the See of Exeter would be
totally inadequate to his wants.

The fubject was referred to again on December the
1 5th, when Lord Althorp dated that, in the decision to

u

290 Promife of Further Preferment.

which the Government had come they were not actuated
by any perfonal confederations towards Dr. Phillpotts,
but that it was on public grounds alone that they had
advifed his Majefty not to allow the living of Stanhope
to be held in commendam. They confidered it a grofs
abufe to permit a living of fuch importance, and re
quiring the conftant attention of the incumbent, to be
held by a perfon who muft necefTarily refide at a dif-
tance. At the fame time he was aware that a great
hardfhip was inflicted on Dr. Phillpotts ; for he had
accepted the See of Exeter on the diftinct underftand-
ing that he was to hold the living of Stanhope in
commendam. Under thefe circumftances the Govern
ment had determined to add to the See of Exeter the
firft Church preferment in the gift of the Crown which
fell vacant, and did not involve the cure of fouls.

The arrangement coft Earl Grey fome trouble. The
queftion, however, was ultimately referred to the Bifhop
of Durham (Dr. Van Mildert), who offered the Rec
tory of Stanhope to the Rev. W. N. Darnell, a canon
of the cathedral, and he, on his acceptance of it, refigned
his flail in favour of Dr. Phillpotts. This preferment
he has continued to hold, together with his bifhopric,
up to the prefent time, and his increafing years and
infirmities do not prevent him from taking his regular
turn of refidence, and difcharging the duties of his
office with exemplary punctuality. The living of Sho-
brook, near Crediton, is alfo held by the bifhop, it
having been annexed to the See of Exeter on the death

Oppojition to Dr. Phillpotts' Appointment. 29 1

of Dean Carey in 1680. The biftiop never refides
there, and the duties are performed by a curate.

But while the inhabitants of Stanhope were petition
ing the King, and the newfpapers were loud in their
invedives againft the bifhop designate, a memorial was
forwarded to Government, by fome of the clergy of
the diocefe of Exeter, praying that the choice of Dr.
Phillpotts might not be confirmed. Nothing but the
moft extreme cafe could be held to juftify a ftep fb
unufual. Whether the Exeter clergy could plead this
juftification will be feen from the ground-work of
their petition, which alleged a change of fentiment, on
the part of Dr. Phillpotts, upon the queftion of Roman
Catholic Emancipation, as the reafon for their ap
proaching the Throne. But it would have been wifer
— and afluredly it would have faved an ever-recurring
fource of bitter nefs in days to come — if the petitioners
had taken the trouble to fatisfy themfelves that Dr.
Phillpotts really had changed his fentiments for the fake
of a mitre. An examination of his writings would
have convinced them that his fentiments were unaltered.
It is true that he had voted for Mr. Peel ; but was
exclufion from the Epifcopal Bench an appropriate
punifhment for fuch an offence ? There were other
confiderations alfo which might have helped them to a
right conclufion, for when the queftion of Stanhope
was under difcuflion in the Commons, Sir H. Hardinge
ftated that he felt it his duty to mention circumftances
attendant upon the promotion of Dr. Phillpotts. He

292 Statement by Sir H. Hardinge.

then proceeded to fay that the Duke of Wellington,
by whofe authority he fpoke, had communicated with
Dr. Phillpotts on the fubject of the Roman Catholic
Relief Bill, and that Dr. Phillpotts, inftead of being, as
was generally fuppofed, an approver of that meafure,
had been in fact an opponent of it, up to the time when
it pafled. He alfo ftated further, on the authority of
the Archbifhop of Canterbury, that it had been the
intention of Lord Liverpool to raife Dr. Phillpotts to
the Epifcopal Bench. He alfo faid that the Duke of
Wellington made the ufual communications to the
Archbifhop of Canterbury, and the Bifhop of London,
and that the noble duke received the aflent of thofe
prelates to the propriety of the appointment of Dr.
Phillpotts to the See of Exeter. They had, indeed,
faid that the appointment might be unpopular in the
Church ; but as the duke knew that the grounds on
which Dr. Phillpotts was unpopular were altogether
miftaken and unfounded, he felt that this could be no
fufficient objection to the appointment.

It might be thought that this would have been fuffi
cient to have fecured Dr. Phillpotts againft a repetition
of thofe unmanly attacks to which he had been expofed.
But once ftart a flander — no matter how improbable —
and when it has gained pofleflion of the public ear, no
proteftation of innocence on the part of its victim will
ever be able to eradicate the mifchief. Lucky for him
if he does not carry the ftigma to his grave ! This was
pre-eminently the cafe with Dr. Phillpotts. He was

Appeal to Duke of Wellington. 293

deftined to fare no better than many a man as wife and
great as he.

Although it is fomewhat anticipating the courfe
of events, it may not be out of place to refer to
circumftances which led to a flill more emphatic and
complete vindication of his character. After he had
taken his feat in Parliament, and fome of the reform
ing lords had tafted his cauftic eloquence, and found
it little to their liking, it was thought convenient to
rake up this charge of having changed his opinions.
cc Turncoat " is a name from which all men fhrink,
more particularly when that coat has been turned for
gain ; and if this epithet could only be fattened on the
bifhop, it would effect more againft him than they
could hope to do by a whole feflion of fpeeches. But
it was not a pleafant fight to fee a noble lord calmly
reiterating, before his brother peers, a charge which had
been publicly refuted months before on the authority
of the Duke of Wellington himfelf. And yet on
March the 22nd, 1831, the Earl of Radnor thought it
not beneath him to revive the old flander. Fortunately,
the Duke of Wellington happened to be prefent, and
taking advantage of this, the Bifhop of Exeter rofe and
faid :-

" I do not mean to trefpafs long on the indulgence of your
Lordfhips ; and I muft firft return my thanks to the noble
Earl who has made the infmuation or charge, as it affords
me an opportunity, by the ftatementofa few facts, of giving
it a plain, but, as I hope, fatisfactory anfwer. What I am
now about to fay is known to one of your Lordfhips, and one
who, if I err in my ftatement, can immediately contradict

294 The Duke of Wellington's Reply.

me. I refer to the noble Duke (Wellington) lately at the
head of his Majefty's Government, and I entreat that noble
Duke, if I fhould in the leaft err in my ftatement, to con-
tradicl: me. I fuppofe the noble Earl who made this charge
concluded that I had pledged myfelf with the late admin-
iftration to give my unqualified fupport to the Catholic quef-
tion. On that queftion I have always held decided opinions,
and I have always thought that conceffion mould not be
granted without being accompanied with ftrong fecurities.
My opinions on that fubjecl: were well known. The noble
Duke, when in office, had done me the honour to commu
nicate with me on the fubjecl:, and, having ftated his intention
to propofe a meafurefor the relief of the Catholics, had con-
defcended to afk my opinion. I told the noble Duke the
fecurities I thought neceflary; and having afcertained,
through the fame channel, the determination of the Cabinet,
I told the noble Duke that I entirely difapproved of the pro-
pofed meafure, and in all my communications with the noble
Duke I took the liberty of telling him that the propofed
fecurities were inadequate. Having made this ftiort ftate
ment, I again put it to the noble Duke, who alone knew of
the communications, to contradict me, if what I have ftated
is incorrect."

The Duke of Wellington felt bound in juftice to
fay that not one word had been uttered by the bifhop
which was not perfectly correct. He had been often
furprifed at the imputations which had been thrown
out, and the injuftice which had been done to the
Right Rev. Prelate refpecting circumftances which
could not have been known to the public, nor indeed
to any other perfon but themfelves. For his own part,
he could fay that ever fince the correfpondence took
place he had never mentioned it to any one, and he
believed the Right Rev. Prelate had obferved a fimilar
referve.

Calumny completely refuted. 295

After a ftatement fo open and explicit, it would be
idle to fay more in refutation of the calumny. Truth
muft at laft prevail, and until difcredit is thrown upon
the honoured name of the Duke of Wellington, Dr.
Phillpotts has the proud confcioufnefs of feeling that he
was elevated to the Epifcopal Bench by a ftatefman
whofe views upon a great queftion of national policy
he had the courage to oppofe.

296

CHAPTER XIX.

Dr. Pbillpotts confecrated Bijhop of Exeter. Does Homage to
the King. Arrival in Exeter. His Reception by the Mayor
and Chamber. The Bijhop's Reply to their Congratulations.
His Inftallation. Firjt Sermon at the Cathedral. The
Living of Tregony. Collated to a Stall at Durham. Meet
ing of Parliament. The Bijhop takes his Seat. His Firjt
Speech in the Houfe of Lords. The Parijh of Woodbury.
The fir/} Piece of Preferment at the di fp of al of the Bijhop.
Tour in Cornwall. Parliamentary SeJJion. Arrives at 11-
fracombe. Vifits the Scilly IJJands, and confirms there,
jfnniverfary Meeting at Exeter of the Society for the Pro
pagation of the Gofpelin Foreign Parts. The Bijhop' s Speech.
Increafed Circulation of the Bible. Tranquil State of the
Diocefe. Lending Libraries. Condition of the Scilly IJlands.
King's Letter for the Society for the Propagation of the
Gojpel. Rumour of Reduftion of Annual Grant to that
Society.

| HE confecration of Dr. Phillpotts to the
See of Exeter took place at the Archi-
epifcopal Chapel, Lambeth, on Sunday,
the 2nd of January, 1831, the confecrat-
ing prelates being the Archbifhop of Canterbury (Dr.
Howley), the Bifhop of London (Dr. Blomfield), and
the Bifhop of Llandaff (Dr. Copleftone). The fermon
was preached by the Rev. J. Bartholomew, who after
wards became examining chaplain to the bifhop. It
was printed at the command of the archbimop.

Having done homage to the King at the Pavilion

Bijhop Phillpotts* Arrival in Exeter. 297

at Brighton, the bifhop very fhortly afterwards fet out
for his diftant diocefe, arriving in Exeter on Monday
the loth of January. News of his coming had fpread
through the town and neighbourhood, and, in confe-
quence of the circumftances attending his appointment,
great anxiety was manifefted to fee him. His wel
come, if not enthufiaftic, was refpeclful. The children
of the Epifcopal Charity Schools were drawn up in
line on the Heavitree road, and on the bifhop's car
riage making its appearance the fenior boy came
forward and delivered an appropriate addrefs. The
bifhop was evidently much pleafed ; and after ex
changing compliments with the citizens, who muftered
in a ftrong body, he was efcorted to the Eaft-gate,
where the mayor and chamber and many of the clergy
were waiting to receive him at the houfe of the Rev.
Dr. Colly ns, Head Matter of the Grammar School.
The mayor (Paul Meafor, Efq.) then addrefled the
bifhop, congratulating him on his advancement to the
See, and exprefling a hope that the good underftand-
ing which had fo long fubfifted between the Bifhops
of Exeter and the civil authorities of the city might
continue unimpaired. The bifhop, in an elegant and
characteriftic fpeech, thanked the mayor and the other
members of the chamber for the reception they had
given him. He had expected, he faid, to meet with
a kind congratulation from the chief magiftrate on
his arrival, but had not been prepared for fo impreflive
an addrefs as the mayor had juft delivered. He was
fully fenflble of the importance of the dignity to which

298 The Living ofTregony.

he was now called. It was well known that among
all the cities of England none was more juftly renowned
for its loyalty than Exeter ; and the kind expreflions
of congratulation which he had juft heard led him to
form the higheft hopes for the future. The bifhop
again expreffed his thanks for the kind manner in
which he had been received, and was then introduced
by the mayor to the other members of the chamber.
A proceflion was then formed, which proceeded down
High Street and through Broad-gate into the Clofe,
where the bifhop was met by the dignitaries of the
cathedral, each of whom offered congratulations. The
bifhop did not enter the cathedral upon this occafion,
in confequence of the official mandate not having
arrived from London, but proceeded to the palace.
He was inftalled on the following Friday. On the
next Sunday (January the 1 6th) his lordfhip preached
for the firft time in the cathedral, from Matt. xiv. 1,2:
cc At that time Herod the tetrarch heard of the fame
of Jefus, and faid unto his fervants, This is John the
Baptift ; he is rifen from the dead ; and therefore
mighty works do fhow forth themfelves in him." The
text, which was taken from the fecond leffon for the
day, was thought by many to be a fingular one for the
occafion, and the fermon contained no allufion to his
recent appointment.

The firft living to which the bifhop inftituted a cler
gyman (the Rev. J. L. Lugger), was Tregony, Corn
wall, on the 1 9th of January, 1831. It is fomewhat
remarkable that the right of prefenting to this living

Meeting of Parliament . 299

is now the fubjed: of protrafted litigation between the
bifhop and the patron, the nominee of the latter having
been refufed inftitution by his lordfhip. Tregony,
then, as is not unlikely, will be aflbciated with the
earlieft and lateft days of his epifcopate.

On the following Sunday (January the 23rd) the
bifhop preached again in the cathedral, from Matt.
xxi. 19, 20, the fecond leffon for the day ; and it was
generally thought that this fermon did more than the
firft to vindicate the high reputation which he had
brought with him into the diocefe.

It was in this month that the bifhop was collated to
a ftall in Durham Cathedral, on the refignation of the
Rev. W. N. Darnell.*

Parliament having met on the 3rd of February, the
bifhop left Exeter on the 5th for Grofvenor Place,
London, to aflift in the bufinefs of the feflion. On
the yth he took the oaths and his feat in the Houfe
of Lords. He was introduced by the Bifhop of Lin
coln (Dr. John Kaye) and the Bifhop of LlandafF
(Dr. Edward Copleftone), and, after figning the De
claration, he took his feat on the bifhops' bench, where
he received the congratulations of the Lord Chancellor.
After this it became his duty to read prayers in the
Houfe as junior bifhop.

The firft occafion of the bifhop fpeaking in Parlia
ment was on the 29th of March in this year (1831),
upon a matter connected with his diocefe. Lord King

* See page 290.

300 The Parifh ofWoodbury.

prefented a petition from the parifh of Woodbury, in
Devonfhire, complaining that, while 6oo/. a-year was
levied in that parifh, and appropriated to the Choral
Fund of the Cathedral of Exeter, only 5<D/. was paid
to the curate, who performed all the ecclefiaftical duties
in that parifh. The bifhop then briefly dated that he
had no jurifdiction in the matter, as it was one of thofe
cafes in which the tithes were all in the hands of lay
impropriators.

The hiftory of the cafe is as follows. In 1205,
Henry Marfhal, Bifhop of Exeter, having acquired
from Abbot Jordan and the Convent of S. Michael in
Normandy, the Church of S. Swithin in Woodbury,
with all its appurtenances, he made it over to the
choral vicars of the cathedral, in confideration of the
fatigue which they had to undergo in performing the
Divine Office by day and night, and of the fmallnefs
of their ftipends — 20 s. per annum ; 40 s. per annum
being referved for the parochial incumbent, and los.
for his clerk. This grant was confirmed by Bifhop
Brewer on the 28th of May, 1227, who was alfo a
liberal benefactor to their body. Shortly after this,
Reginald de Albemarra, knight, from the motive of
charity, granted them the right of paflure for a certain
number of beafts and cattle, throughout the whole of
his land of Woodbury, except in the wood and garden,
with fome other perquifites and privileges.

The vicars choral are rectors of the parifh, and
ufed to exercife all jurifdiction. This ceafed about
fourteen years fince. The refident clergyman was

Bp. Phillpotts* Firji Piece of Preferment. 301

accuftomed to act under their mandate, and ufually
without epifcopal licence. In 1832 the incumbent's
income was raifed from 50 /. to 82/. per annum.*
It was fubfequently augmented to I45/. per annum.
Towards a parfonage-houfe the vicars choral gave
a fite, as well as fome money. The reft was fup-
plied by the indefatigable labour of the prefent ex
cellent incumbent, the Rev. J. L. Fulford, who funk
a confiderable fum of his private property in its
erection, the total coft being lyoo/. It is only due
to the vicars choral of Exeter to fay that they are
unable to do what they could wifh for the parim of
Woodbury, on account of the infufficiency of their
falaries. The fault does not lie with them, but with
the Dean and Chapter.

The bifhop does not appear to have taken any fhare
in the parliamentary debates of this feflion.

On the 9th of May he conferred a ftall in the ca
thedral on his chaplain, the Rev. John Bartholomew, f
vacant by the death of the Rev. John Bradford Cople-
ftone, the father of the Bifhop of Llandaff. This was
the firft piece of preferment which fell to his difpofal.
On the 1 4th of the fame month he arrived in Exeter
from London, and preached on the following day
(Sunday) to a very full congregation in the cathedral.
His ftay upon this occafion was of very mort duration,

* This is referred to again in Chap. XXII.
f This gentleman, in addition to his canonry, is now
Archdeacon of Barnftaple, and Re&or of Morchard Bifhop.

302 Tour in Cornwall.

for on the Monday morning he left for Cornwall, on
a vifit to Archdeacon Sheepfhanks, near Penryn. He
remained in Cornwall for three weeks, infpecting many
parifhes and churches, and returning to Exeter on
June the 9th. The next morning he left for London
to attend to his duties in Parliament, which met on
the 2 1 ft of June, after the diflblution. He did not
fpeak at all during the feflion, and, on July the 2nd, he
arrived with his family, by fteam-packet from Clifton,
at Ilfracombe, a romantic watering-place in the north
of Devon, where he remained fome weeks enjoying the
{ea-breezes, and making the acquaintance of the neigh
bouring clergy and gentry. During his fojourn he
preached in the parim church, much to the delight of
the good people of the diftrict.

While flaying at Ilfracombe, the bifhop conferred the
living of Rockbeare, near Exeter, on the Rev. Henry
Nicholls (22nd of July), an old and much-refpe<5ted
clergyman of the diocefe, who for many years had been
Head Mafter of the Grammar School at Barnftaple.
This appointment gave great fatisfaction.

At the clofe of the following month (Auguft 30),
he paid an epifcopal vifit to the extreme boundary of
his extenfive diocefe, arriving at Scilly, in H. M. S.
Hermes, accompanied by his chaplain and the Arch
deacons of Cornwall and Totnes. Immediately on
landing he proceeded to the houfe of John Johns,
Efq., agent to the Duke of Leeds, where apartments
had been prepared for himfelf and his fuite. After a
fhort reft he proceeded to make a tour of the Iflands,

Bi/hop Phillpotts at Stilly. 303

vifiting in turn S. Martin's, Trefco, and Bryer, in-
fpe&ing the churches and fchools in each place, and
making very minute inquiries into the flate of the
Parifhes. In the evening his lordfhip dined with a
large party, including all the clergy, at the houfe of his
liberal hoft, where tafte and munificence were alike
confpicuous. On the following day the bifhop attended
Divine Service at S. Mary's Church, and preached a
moil able and impreflive fermon on Confirmation, on
which occafion the church was crowded in every part,
to a greater degree than was ever before witnefled.
The appearance and folemn demeanour of the congre
gation, compofed of perfons from all the Iflands, was
pleafing in the extreme, and could not fail to afford
fatisfadlion to their diocefan. About 250 perfons re
ceived the facred rite of Confirmation ; fhortly after
which the bifhop and fuite proceeded to S. Agnes to
infpect the fchool there, and in the evening he left
Scilly for Plymouth, accompanied by the refpectful
attachment of all who had had accefs to him, and who
looked forward to the probability of a future, though
perhaps diftant, vifit, with feelings of unmingled fatif-
faction.

On his return from Scilly the bifhop proceeded to
Exeter for the purpofe of attending the anniverfary
of the Societies for the Propagation of the Gofpel in
Foreign Parts, and for Promoting Chriftian Know
ledge, which was held September the ifth. There
was a fpecial fervice in the cathedral, attended by the
mayor and chamber ; the fermon being preached by the

304 Anniverfary Meeting at Exeter.

Rev. J. Barker, of Silverton, after which a collection
was made amounting to 757. The civic authorities
then returned to the Guildhall, where the cuftomary
meeting took place, the bimop in the chair. After
the Secretary's and Treafurer's Reports had been read,
the bimop addrefled the meeting ; and as his fpeech
embraces many topics of intereft it will be well to give
it entire.

" Gentlemen, it is my duty to fay a few words upon the
Reports which I have juft had the honour of reading to you,
— and they will be very few words, for when I recollect the
illuftrious individuals who have preceded me in this chair,
in fupport of thefe focieties, I feel that it would be a moft
unjuft intruflon upon your time, and a tax upon your pa
tience, were I to detain you long. Still, however, I will
fay a few words. In the firft place, then, in reference to
the Report of the Committee of the Society for the Promo
tion of Chriftian Knowledge. Allow me to congratulate
you upon the increafed diftribution of its traces, and, above
all, the enlarged circulation of its larger and moft important
works, I mean the Bible, the Teftament, and Prayer-book,
of which a larger portion than ordinary has been diftributed
during the paft year — a year upon the fuccefs of which I
moft heartily congratulate you. Gentlemen, I am forry to
fay that there has increafed, in the courfe of laft year, a
fpirit of infubordination and difaffe6Uon, which I am com
pelled to admit has been far too fuccefsful in many parts of
England, to entice our people to fly not only from their
duty to their earthly rulers, but almoft to rife up in defiance
of their God. I am pleafed to be able to fay that nothing of
this kind has appeared in this Diocefe — at leaft nothing has
arifen which could at all approximate to that defperate ftate of
things which we have had the melancholy tafk of witnefling
in other parts. It is, Gentlemen, with proud fatisfa&ion that

Condition of the Scilly I/lands. 305

I heartily congratulate you upon it. May it pleafe God
that thefe two truly Britifh counties may ever preferve the
true Britifh character, and be prevented from falling into
that difgrace which has almoft made our countrymen in
other parts of England forget that they are fo. Gentlemen,
we muft recollect, however, that whatever caufe we have
for congratulation in this particular, we can have little
ground to hope that this occafion of congratulation will be
continued to us if we do not ufe the proper and judicious
means of forwarding thefe fentiments with the people ; and
I rejoice to find that this Committee have not confined their
bufinefs merely to the circulation of religious traces — that it
has not confined its care merely to religious knowledge, but
that it has promoted the general knowledge of the people
alfo. I rejoice to find that lending libraries have been eftab-
lifhed in no lefs than feventy places in this county. I re
joice that while they have been largely fupplied with religious
works they have, by means of this Society, alfo been able to
obtain a due portion of temporal knowledge. I venture to
exprefs the importance of extending thefe libraries to dif-
tri&s into which they have not yet been introduced. Gen
tlemen, there is one other remark which I will ftill take the
liberty of making with reference to the Report of the * Society
for the Promotion of Chriftian Knowledge,' — it tells us that it
extends itfelf not merely through every part of England and
Wales, but throughout every portion of Great Britain.
Gentlemen, it has been my delight very recently to witnefs
its operation in one of the remote parts of this diocefe — a
part which I mean to fay is hardly recognized as belonging
to England — and it is only in this way that I can reconcile
it, that a clufter of iflands in fight of the Britifh fhore, but
which is alfo the immediate property of the Britifh Go
vernment, as every inch of land is held from it, yet thefe
iflands have been left almoft entirely to this Society, for the
fupport of Chriftianity among their people. I am bound to
ftate that, with one exception, I mean the ifland of S. Mary,

306 King's Letter for Society

the largeft and moft populous — this is the cafe. In that
ifland there is a minifter — paid by his Grace the Duke of
Leeds, who is leflee of the property under the crown.
But he is the only one. In the five others, containing more
fouls but lefs means, not the fmalleft means of religious in-
ftru&ion is afforded by Government — but they have been
freely afforded by this Society, which has been powerfully
inftrumental in the fpread of true religion. Gentlemen, be
fore I conclude upon this fubje£t, I fhould deprive myfelf of
a very pleafant duty if I did not bear the moft faithful tefti-
mony to the readinefs of the noble Earl at the head of his
Majefty's Government to remedy this evil. As principal of
this diocefe, I took the liberty of informing him of the ftate
of the Scilly I (lands ; and he moft readily and promptly re
turned me an anfwer of his willingnefs and defire to know
what was beft to be done in order to remedy this evil.
Having thus trefpafled on your patience with reference to
this Society, I would refrain from faying anything with
reference to the other Society (for Propagating the Gofpel
in Foreign Parts), did not fome circumftances imperatively
call for a few remarks. Gentlemen, it has pleafed his Ma-
jefty's Government in aid of that Society to iflue a King's
Letter empowering contributions to be made in every parifh
in the United Kingdom, and its caufe to be advocated by
every clergyman. I am quite fure, from what I know of
my clergy, that they will in all cafes exert themfelves to the
utmoft ; and I venture to hope that the zeal which they
have invariably ftiown will have its due effect upon their
flocks. Gentlemen, it will be obvious to you that this letter
is of the utmoft importance, and has become abfolutely
neceflary, after what you have heard of the wants of this
Society, which has ftripped itfelf bare of its funded property,
in order that there fhall be no diminution of its ufefulnefs.
Gentlemen, will you fuffer its ftreams to be dried up and
its fource to be exhaufted ? — it is impoflible. Let but the
lofs be known, and Britain, I am fure, will make it up.

for Propagation of the Gofpel. 307

Gentlemen, on this fubjecT: I am bound to fay fomething
more about the Government of the country. It is true that
this Government has mown its zeal by i filling this letter to
the clergy ; and I wifh that this was all I had to allude to
in refpecT: to Government ; but I lament to fay that, while
with one hand his Majefty has been advifed to iflue this
letter, — on the other hand, if rumour does not deceive me,
a rumour which I afTure you I would not lightly allude to —
but a rumour has reached me from authority, too facred to
doubt, that it is the intention of Government for the Houfe
of Commons to move for a very confiderable reduction of
the annual grant which, up to this year, it has been in the
habit of giving this Society. It may not be known to you,
but this is the fact, that religious inftruction in Canada is
chiefly given in this way : — when a diftrict is clear and a
church is built, the Society is ready to give 2OO/. a-year for
a clergyman to fettle there, and Government, as I conceive
with only a juft fenfe of what is due, has been hitherto in
the habit of granting the fum, I think, of I5,ooo/. a-year in
aid of this great object. I grieve to fay that in thefe days
of economy, the Government of this country — with a revenue
of between fifty and fixty millions a-year — can think it too
much to contribute that unimportant fum to the religious
inftruction of one of the moft important colonies of the em
pire. Gentlemen, I do not ftand here fimply to ftate the
fact ; when I could uphold Government, I did it with
confcientioufnefs and fmcerity. What can be the right
terms to apply to this conduct of Government, I will not
fay. But let us fay with refpect to Government, that it is
by no means blind to its important duties. No ! but it is
fo urged on every fide to the neceflity of economy that it is
continually looking out for every means of reduction. Gen
tlemen, I cannot doubt but that Government would, in this
particular, be glad if there were an expreflion of public
feeling to keep the pruning knife from it. I think we
mould hear no more of this contemplated reduction, if a

308 Increafed Funds neceffary.

confiderable number of petitions were to be poured into the
Houfe, fo that Government might have their hands ftrength-
ened upon this fubjedl. Gentlemen, there is one more
point : — the main exertions of this Society, large and moft
fuccefsful as they have been, bring with them a neceflity for
increafed funds, and call for the increafed exertions of thofe
Englifhmen who are not indifferent to the wants of their
countrymen, whom neceflity has deprived of a home and
driven to feek for a place lefs facred to their feelings than
that which they have left. Surely, Gentlemen, it is right,
for the fake of our own expatriated countrymen, and for
thofe millions of our fellow fubje&s elfewhere, that we fhould
be eager to procure them thofe bleflings which the Gofpel
only can yield."

3°9

CHAPTER XX.

The Bijhop goes to London. Lord King's Motion on the Pre-
fcription Bill (Tithes}. His Attack upon the Bench of
Bijhop s. Followed by the Lord Chancellor. Excited State
of the Country on the Subjeft of Reform. Menacing Language
towards the Houfe of Lords. The Reform Bill thrown out
by the Lords. Outrages in the Provinces. Brutal Attack
on the Marquis of Londonderry. Inflammatory Articles In
the Public Prints. The Bijhops the fpecialObj efts of Attack.
Extratt from the Times. Dauntlefs Conduct of the Bijhop
of Exeter. His Reply to Lord King's Attack. Earl Grey's
infulting Rejoinder. The Bijhop' s Reply. Conclujion of the
Difcujjion. The Bijhop of Durham burnt in Effigy. The
Bijhop of London threatened. The Parijh of Clerkenwell.
Excited State of Exeter. Popular Agitators. Anticipated
Riot. The Yeomanry Cavalry called out. Addrefs of the
Exeter Clerical Club prefented to the Bijhop.

JHORTLY after this meeting the Bifhop
proceeded to London, where he appeared
prominently for the firft time in a Par
liamentary Debate. On the occafion of
two petitions being prefented by Lord King (October
the nth), on the fubjecl of the Prefcription Bill
(Tithes), the noble lord made fome very fevere and
unjuftifiable remarks in reference to the conduct of the
clergy, charging them with being " arch-difturbers
when their own interefts were concerned, although
under other circumftances they were adverfe to all

3 1 o Reform Agitation.

change." Lord Suffield thought it not beneath him
to adopt the fame line, and roundly afTerted that the
bench of bifhops were ready to fupport the Govern
ment of the country fo long as it was arbitrary and
oppreflive, but that as foon as a liberal Government
produced a meafure for the benefit of the people at
large, and for the extenfion and fecurity of the liber
ties of the country, the bench deferted that adminiftra-
tion, and threw all its power into the fcale againft it.
Deplorable as this language is, it is ftill more painful
to find the Lord Chancellor fo far forgetting what
was due to his high office, and the auguft aflembly he
was addrefling, as to taunt thofe bifhops who had
recently voted againft the Reform Bill, with the defire
of <c tripping the Government up." It may be diffi
cult at the prefent day to eftimate correctly the effect
of fuch language, coming from fuch a quarter : but in
thofe days it was no light matter. It muft be borne
in mind that Reform was the all-abforbing topic of
the day. The bill, having pafled the Commons on
the 2ift of September, was carried up, next day, to
the Lords, by Lord John Ruflell, attended by about
a hundred of its ftaunch fupporters in the Lower
Houfe. It was read a firft time, on the motion of
Earl Grey, without any remark being made, and was
directed to be read a fecond time on the 3rd of Oc
tober. Meanwhile, meafures were vigoroufly employed
to intimidate the Peers into fubmifTion. Political
unions, the prefs, and public agitators, rivalled one
another in the Joudnefs of their menaces.

The Houfe of Lords menaced. 3 1 1

" Let the Lords/' faid Colonel Torrens, " refufe this bill,
if they dare. And if they do, dearly will they rue their
cbftinacy hereafter. You all remember the Sibyl's ftory.
She prefented her oracles to Tarquin and his court, and her
oracles were rejected. She burned a portion, and again
offered them ; but they were again rejected. After dimin-
ifhing their number ftill further, ihe once more returned ;
and the remaining volumes were gladly purchafed at the
price which fhe had originally demanded for the entire. We,
however, mean to reverfe the moral; for mould the prefent
bill be defeated, we {hall bring their Lordfhips another bill,
demanding a little more, and then,Jhould they Jiill dare to
refeji the might and infult the majejiy of the people of England^
which Heaven forefend ! united as one man will we come
forward with a Bill of Reform, in which their Lordfhips will
find themfelves inferted in Schedule A."

And thefe fentiments were received with favour !
They were only too faithful an echo of the public
voice. It was amid excitement, then, which can fcarcely
find a parallel in modern days, that Earl Grey, on
Monday the jrd of October, moved the fecond read
ing of the bill. The debate continued for five nights,
and at a quarter paft fix on the morning of the 8th of
October the bill was thrown out by a majority of
forty-one.

And now the fupporters of the meafure were excited
almoft to frenzy, and it feemed likely that they would
carry their worft denunciations into effect. In more
than one inftance the mob endeavoured to wreak their
vengeance on perfons whofe fentiments were oppofed to
reform. At Derby the front of the mayor's houfe was
demolifhed, feveral other houfes were attacked by the

312 Attack on Marquis of Londonderry.

mob, and the town-clerk received fuch fevere injuries
that it was for fome time doubtful whether he would
furvive them. The town gaol was broken open, and
all the prifoners liberated. The county prifon was alfo
attacked, and a fevere conflict enfued between the con-
ftabulary and the mob. The foldiers were ultimately
called out, and the riot was not fupprefled until feveral
lives had been loft. At Nottingham, among other
lamentable excefTes, the caftle of the Duke of New-
caftle was entirely deftroyed by fire; while at Haftings
placards of " Death or Liberty !" covered the walls.

As an evidence of the difficulties with which public
men, who were obnoxious to the mob, were furrounded
in the difcharge of their duty, it may be enough to
mention that the Marquis of Londonderry was aflailed
on the loth of October (the day preceding the pre-
fentation of Lord King's petition) by a furious mob
as he was going down to and returning from the
Houfe. They feized his cabriolet, endeavoured to
drag him out of it, and one powerful ruffian ftruck
him a violent blow with a ftick. If the mob had fuc-
ceeded in pulling him out of his cabriolet, there can
be little doubt but that they would have murdered
him. Fortunately, however, the horfe fprang forward
violently, and he efcaped from the crowd. Such was
the treatment which public men might expect who did
not pander to the mob ; and well for them if it was no
worfe.

But fierce as was the rabble, the prefs was fiercer -y
and it would be hard to find language to characterize

Extratt from the " Times" 3 1 3

the inflammatory articles which appeared even in prints
which laid fome claim to moderation. The bifhops
were the favourite objects of attack. Two only of
their number had voted in favour of the Reform Bill,
viz. the Bifhops of Chichefter and Norwich, while of
the reft twelve, including the Biihop of Exeter, were
in their places, and gave their vote as " not-content,"
and nine voted againft the meafure by proxy. Nothing
was fpared to bring them and their office into contempt.
All that falfehood, barbed by party fpite, could do
againft them was done with an unfparing hand. The
flood-gates of licentioufnefs were opened, and for a
time it was doubtful whether the moft venerable
inftitutions of religion would not be fwept away.

The following extract from the Times may ferve to
illuftrate the language of intimidation which was fo
largely reforted to at this period : —

" Should the Bench of Bifhops," it fays, " be unhappily
found averfe to the reform of our political inftitutions ; and?
in the exercife of that hoftility, ftiould they blight the hopes
of their countrymen, by adding to the votes againft the bill
juft fo many as may be fufficient to fecure the defeat of it,
while, had the meafure been left to take its chance among
the peers who are laymen, it would have pafled into a law ;
ftiould, we fay, fo terrible a difafter happen, what will be the
pofition of the Church and of the prelacy ? — what the feel
ings of the whole Britifh Empire towards them ? Oh ! let
the bimops be wife in time, and not realize, againft our
venerable Church, the only poflible anfwer to that inaufpi-
cious queftion. The Socinian, the Papift, the Jew, are all
in port, all exulting in their own increafed fecurity ; but the
Reformed Church of England will, by the unfkilfulnefs or

314 Daunt lefs Conduct of

obftinacy of her proper pilots, have been driven from her
moorings in the hearts of the people, and expofed to a hurri
cane the like of which was never blown. c It is the bifhops,'
will an exafperated nation cry — * it is the bijhops who have
crujhed our liberties, and dejlroyed us. But for them we fhould
have had a free Parliament, a reiponfible Government, and
the downfall of an oppreflive oligarchy. Our character is
loft, and it is to the anti-national fpirit of the Church we owe
this grievous difappointment. How SHALL WE FORGIVE
THE CLERGY ?J "

Such was the menacing language held even before
the Reform Bill was thrown out by the Lords ; and it
may well be fuppofed that the pofition of the bifhops
was not mended afterwards. But there were fpirits
among them which neither the lawleflhefs of the mob,
the ribaldry of the prefs, nor the coarfe invective of
their brother peers could quell, and foremoft among
them flood the newly-created Bifhop of Exeter. When
the Bifhops of London and LlandafF had indignantly
hurled back the flanderous accufations which had been
brought againft them, the Bifhop of Exeter rofe, and
delivered a few fhort but impreflive fentences.

" He was wholly aftonifhed," he faid, " at the remarks
which had been made on the motives of the reverend Bench
from the higheft quarters. Noble lords afTumed the right
to cenfure the body of bifhops for the vote they had recently
given. This cenfure came from thofe too, who, from their
office and ftation, were bound to fuftain the inftitutions of
the country. He defied any noble lord to ftate a fingle in-
ftance in the hiftory of the country when any members of
that Houfe had been fo vilified and infulted as the bifhops
had been within the laft week, by a perfon of the higheft
ftation in the realm. They had been accufed of votin

;

the Bifhop of Exeter. 3 1 5

againft the Reform Bill becaufe it was the meafure of a
Liberal Adminiftration. Was this charge an inftance of
liberality ? and did the members of his Majefty's Govern
ment by thefe remarks intend to incite and encourage vio
lence ? He did not apologize for his warmth ; for he mould
be afhamed of himfelf if he could be cool upon fuch a fubje&.
Had the attack upon the Bench of Bifhops been made at a
moment of excitement, to that excitement he would have
fubmitted ; but, upon the mere prefentation of a petition,
and that a petition of no confequence, one noble lord had
abufed the Church as the great arch-difturber of all order ;
and another noble lord had charged the bifhops with being
bound together in a confpiracy againft the liberties of the
country, and againft all that could conftitute the welfare and
happinefs of the people. Thefe were the notions that were
propagated everywhere againft the Bench of Bifhops ; and
noble lords had, moreover, fpoken againft them in that Houfe
in a tone of farcafm, if not of direct and pofitive cenfure, as
a body actuated by felf-intereft at variance with the public
good. Under thefe circumftances he had thought it his
duty to addrefs their lordfhips."

The bifhop's manly eloquence had done its work ;
and Earl Grey, who immediately rofe, could fo ill
difguife his feelings of irritation as to charge him with
having " uttered the moft intemperate and unfounded
infinuation that he had ever heard from any member
of that Houfe." It may be hard to juftify fuch lan
guage as this ; but the occafion demanded that fo zea
lous a champion of the Epifcopal Bench as the Bifhop
of Exeter promifed to be mould be cru fried at once ;
and fo, throwing all the indignation he could into his
language — and that was not a little — the noble earl
protefted that the bifhop was not merely contented

3 1 6 The Bijhop's Reply

with want of truth in what he had faid, " but had
uttered it with all the appearance of a fpirit that but
little became the garment he wore. It was the grofTeft
injuftice he had ever heard." The noble lord con
cluded a fpeech, which does his temper little credit, by
calling on the bifhop to produce the proofs of what
he had afferted.

The Bifhop of Exeter being thus appealed to, rofe
and faid, that —

" He was not unwilling to admit, that, although he had
charged the excitement which exifted againft the Bench of
Bifhops throughout the country to the language which had
been held in that Houfe,he had not meant to bring any charge
againft the noble earl. He would now, however, proceed
to prove the truth of what he had aflerted. Irregular as it
might be to refer to the debate that had recently taken place,
yet, under the peculiar circumftances of his cafe, he hoped
for the indulgence of their lordfhips in being allowed to
refer to the proceedings in queftion. It muft be within the
recollection of every noble lord who heard him that in the
firft night of the debate upon the bill, the noble earl inflating the
cafe to the Houfe without any one thing to excite him from
the Bench of Bifhops had thought himfelf juftified in calling
upon the Bench ferioufly to take to mind what would be
their condition in the country if there were to be found a
narrow majority of lay lords againft the bill, and if it were
to be difcovered that the bifhops had voted with that narrow
majority. The noble earl had put this in a way to fhow
that he expected that the Bench would be induced by the
fear of odium to vote with minifters. To call upon any one
fet of men — to call upon one of the great ftates of the realm
as they were termed by the fages of the law, and by the law
itfelf — to call upon them by way of a menace of popular in
dignation had the tendency — a tendency which the noble earl

to Earl Grey. 317

perhaps little fufpedled — of exciting the odium of the people.
Had not that odium been excited, and was not the Bench of
Bifhops expofed to its effects ? The noble earl had affumed
the character of a prophet, and had told the bifhops ' to fet
their houfes in order. ' It was true that the noble earl did
not conclude the fentence. He left that for themfelves to do,
but it was impoflible not to know that he referred to where
the prophet had threatened deftru&ion. The noble earl in
the fame fpeech had taken fpecial care to remind the Bench
of Bifhops that certain important questions were in agitation
which might take the turn that would prove favourable or
unfavourable, according to the conduct of the Bench on that
night. What were thefe queftions ? Where were they in
agitation, but in the councils of which the noble lord was at
the head — he hoped fo at leaft, for he hoped the noble earl
did not delegate his fuperiority to inferior minds. If the
noble lord meant that fchemes of confifcation were con
templated — if the noble earl meant that the bold among the
multitude would be encouraged, and that the multitude
would be goaded on to more immediate execution — then he
(the Bifhop of Exeter) could indeed conceive that the
conduct of the bifhops that night might have the effe& of
driving the multitude to fuch purpofes. Had he faid any
thing but what the proofs he had adduced fully fubftantiated ?
The language of the noble earl had a tendency to implicate
the prelates with the people, and to make them be regarded
by the people throughout all the country as their foes. The
people already pretty well echoed the noble Earl's fuggeftions,
for they read the debates, and the fame language was re
peated by the journals. The bifhops were threatened to be
driven from their ftations becaufe they did not vote for
minifters — becaufe for once they had thus voted upon the
greateft queftion agitated fmce the Revolution when the
bifhops had a&ed in defiance of the Crown. Where would
their Lordfhips have been but for the bifhops at the Revo
lution ? The prefent was the firft occafion upon which the

3 1 8 Conclufion of the Difcuffion.

Bench of Bifhops had oppofed the prefent minifters, and yet
for oppofmg them this once they were charged with deferving
all the mifchief with which they had been threatened."

Earl Grey then afked the bifliop why he had not
made the ferious charges he now brought forward,
when the words he imputed to him were frefh in the
recollection of the Houfe, and when he could have
made thofe charges in a regular manner. For his part
he thought that the bifhop's proofs correfponded very
little with his aflertions. He had charged his Majefty's
minifters with having purpofely done all in their power
to encourage tumult and excite the mob to acts of
popular violence.

Upon this the Bifliop of Exeter faid : —

" Moft folemnly do I declare that I do not think I have
ufed any fuch words. Upon my honour and confcience I did
not ufe thofe words. I am quite fure that I never accufed
his Majefty's Government of exciting the people to out-
rage."

After fome further remarks by Earl Grey, and a
vindication of the conduct of the Bench of Bifliops by
the Duke of Wellington, the fubject dropped.

It may well be fuppofed that when peers of the
realm could be found ready to afcribe the moft fordid
and unworthy motives to the rulers of the Church, the
multitude would not be flow to imitate their example.
Henceforward bifhops were to contend, as beft they
might, againft peers, public, and prefs, an unholy Triad!

The fruits of this alliance were foon matured.
The Bifhop of Durham was burnt in effigy before

Biflwp of London threatened. 3 1 9

his own palace ; and the Bifhop of London, who was
advertifed to preach at S. Anne's, Weftminfter, was
warned by the parifhioners that the whole congregation
would quit the church at the moment of his afcending
the pulpit. The Times truly enough faid of this, —

" Such a proof of public antipathy towards the entire
' order/ whofe conduct in the Houfe of Lords was fo con-
fpicuous on the fecond reading of the Reform Bill is without
an example in modern biftory^ and is worth a whole library of
comments."

In the important parim of Clerkenwell alfo the
following requifition was tranfmitted to the church
wardens : —

" Wells without water. We, the underfigned, inhabitants of
the parim of Clerkenwell, moft refpe&fully requeft the
churchwardens, that, in confequence of the irreligious con
duct of the bifhops in refpect to the Reform Bill, they (the
bifhops) fliall not be again folicited to preach in the churches
of this parim."

Ridiculous as this memorial founds at the prefent
day, it was copied into provincial journals and received
with great applaufe.

But nowhere did the noxious fruit come to ma
turity earlier than in the Diocefe of Exeter. The
plant had ftruck its roots in a congenial foil. The
people of the Weft, among whom Cromwell, William
of Orange, and Wefley had found their ftouteft ad
herents, were eafily brought to believe that bifhops
were enemies of progrefs, and the champions of a
narrow faclion, which defired to reprefs their energies
and curtail their liberty. Never, fo their agitators

320 Excited State of Exeter.

told them, would the country breathe freely till every
mitred head had been brought low, and the fooner
churches were pulled down, and the parfons fet to
mend the roads with the ftones, the fooner would Eng
land be great and free. More of the fame fort was
faid, and much of it was unhappily believed. And
fo, before the Bifhop of Exeter returned to his cathe
dral city, a ftrong party had been formed againft him,
and at a large reform meeting three groans were called
for and given with every indication of bitternefs at
the mention of his lordmip's name. And what made
things worfe was that people whofe pofition and edu
cation fhould have taught them better were not
afhamed to mingle their voices with the fhouts of
the rabble. It was thought that the bifhop would
have been burnt in effigy. No fuch fcandal, however,
took place for the prefent ; but as the annual Satur
nalia of the 5th of November came round, it was
feared that the mob would indulge in more than its
wonted excefles, and that a riot would take place. So
active were the leaders, and fo ferious was the danger
confidered, that the mayor proceeded to fwear in a
large number of fpecial conftables, and Lord Ebring-
ton attended as the Vice-Lieutenant, to command the
yeomanry cavalry, who were haftily called out, and who
were kept under arms the greater part ,of the night.
This force, however, was with commendable prudence
kept in referve, but the knowledge that it was clofe at
hand exercifed a moft falutary effect, for no ferious
demon ftration was attempted.

Vote of Thanks to the Bifhop. 32 1

But while "the great liberal party," as it was
ftyled, were thus difporting themfelves at the expenfe
of their bifhop, whofe only offence was that he had
dared to give an independent vote, and had aflifted
the Houfe of Peers in maintaining its rights as an
independent part of the conftitution, the clergy were
not flow to recognize his fervices. At the monthly
meeting of the Exeter Clerical Club, October 25th, it
was unanimoufly refolved that a vote of thanks mould
be offered to the bifhop of the diocefe for the elo
quent and manly part which he had taken in the de
bate in the Houfe of Lords on the nth of October.
Laudatur ab his, culfatur ab illis ; and no doubt the
bifliop knew whofe approval was worth the moft.

322

CHAPTER XXI.

The Return of the Bijhop to Exeter. Anniversary of the Devon
and Exeter Central Schools. Service at the Cathedral, and
Sermon by the Bijhop. Meeting at the Guildhall. The
Bijhop1 s Speech. His Flrjl Ordination. Neglett of Ember
Seafons. Attention to the Affairs of his Diocefe. Prefenta-
tion of his Eldejl Son to a Living. Difpute with the Parijh-
ioners of Stoke Darner el, Devonport, about a Burial-ground.
Dr. Lujhington confulted. A Veftry Meeting of the Pa-
rijhioners. Libellous Refolutions pajfed. The Bijhop ap
plies to Court of King's Bench. A Rule obtained to Jhow
Caufe why a Criminal Information Jhould not be filed againji
the Chairman. Arguments of Counfel againft the Rule. It
is made abfolute.

jWEEK before the prorogation of Parlia
ment, which took place on the 2Oth of
Oclober, the bifhop returned to Exeter,
and on the following Thurfday was pre-
fent at the Anniverfary of the Devon and Exeter
Central Schools. The children educated at thefe fchools,
headed by the mayor and civic authorities, and accom
panied by many of the clergy, walked in proceflion
to the cathedral, where Divine Service was per
formed and a moft eloquent and impreflive fermon
preached by the bimop, his text being taken from
i Pet. iv. 10, <f As every man hath received the gift,

Meeting at the Guildhall* Exeter. 323

even fo minifter the fame one to another, as good
ftewards of the manifold grace of God." At the
conclufion of the fervice a collection was made at the
door, amounting to 6i/. i8j. 8<^., a larger amount
than had been collected for many years before, but a
pitiful fum enough as compared with what the fame
clafs of people will fpend on a more congenial con
cert, or archery meeting. It furnifhed ground for
congratulation, however, and as everybody was pleafed
it would be out of place to do more than record the
fact. In the courfe of the day a meeting was held
in the Guildhall, the bifhop in the chair. After the
report had been read and the ufual refolutions pro-
pofed and agreed to, Sir T. D. Acland rofe, and pro-
pofed a vote of thanks to the bifhop for the excellent
difcourfe with which he had favoured them that
morning, conveying, in the moft complimentary terms,
a defire that his lordmip would ftep beyond the direct
terms of the motion, and caufe it to be printed.

Dr. MacGowan feconded the motion, which, having
been put by the mayor, was carried with three hearty
rounds of applaufe. The bifhop then rofe, and, as
foon as he could obtain a hearing, faid : —

" Mr. Mayor, I aflure you I fhould moft confult my own
inclination if I were fimply to return thanks to you, and this
moft refpe&able meeting, for the high honour you have done
me. But I feel it would be moft widely departing from the
fingular example of kindnefs which has been fhown me this
day if I were to do fo. I may be permitted to fay, without
afFe&ation, that my efforts are unworthy of the acknow
ledgement you have made — utterly unworthy, when com-

324 The Bijhop's Speech .

pared with the filent, unpretending, and ufeful exertions
which are made every day by thofe who have difcharged the
duties of fuftaining thefe fchools by the good effe&s of their
control and fupervifion. Gentlemen, it is an eafy matter for
a man to fit down in his ftudy, and put on paper thofe fenti-
ments which every one muft feel in the performance of a
great Chnftian duty : to one whofe difpofition through life
has been to be employed in fuch matters, it requires little
effort to write upon fuch a fubjecl: as this. But I will go
further. I will fay that it is conferring upon him the higheft
pleafure to be called upon to advocate the caufe of an infti-
tution like this. But, Gentlemen, I had my (hare of fatif-
fa&ion in knowing that, whilft I was advocating the caufe,
I had a far more powerful advocate in the hearts of thofe
who heard me. I know that in this place every hand will
always be open to fuftain fo good a caufe. Little ground,
therefore, have I to claim thanks for the fmall fervices which
I have rendered ; but you, Gentlemen, have largely to claim
my gratitude, for the very honourable mode in which you
have been pleafed to exprefs yourfelves of my fervices."

In feconding the vote of thanks propofed by Arch
deacon Moore to the mayor and chamber for the ufe
of the Guildhall, and their patronage of the Society,
the Bifhop faid :—

" I have great pleafure in feconding the motion. I muft
be permitted to fay, that no one feels more ftrongly than I
do the important benefit of the co-operation of that diftin-
guifhed body. And I really believe — I fay it not in flattery
— that in no city or town in England can it be faid with
more truth — I wifli it could be faid with as much truth in
all — that the civic authorities are anxious on all occafions to
record their teftimony, and give their authority to the fup-
port of the Gofpel, which they are well aware is their own
beft fupport."

His Firft Ordination. 325

After a vote of thanks to his lordfhip for his excel
lent conduct in the chair, the meeting feparated, much
delighted at the courtefy of the bifhop, and the fuccefs
of the day's proceedings.

On the following Sunday (October the 2jrd) the
bifhop held his firft Ordination in the Cathedral Church
of S. Peter at Exeter. Upon this occafion there were
fifteen deacons and fixteen priefts ordained, among the
latter the bifhop's eldeft fon. It is to be regretted
that the primary Ordination of fo eminent a prelate
mould be afTociated with an irregularity — the neglect
of the Ember Seafon. But, whatever may have been
his earlier practice, no bifhop is now more careful to
obferve the feafons appointed by the Church for the
folemn purpofe of choofing and fending labourers into
the Lord's vineyard.

During the whole of the next month, November,
the bifhop devoted himfelf with great afliduity to the
duties of his diocefe, receiving vifits from his clergy,
and preaching in the churches of the city and neigh
bourhood. On the 4th of this month he prefented
his eldeft fon, the Rev. William John Phillpotts,* to
the vicarage of Lelant Uny with Towednack, Corn
wall, twelve days after his ordination.

About this time the bifhop became involved in a
difpute with the parifhioners of Stoke Damerel, the

* This gentleman is now Chancellor of the Diocefe of
Exeter, Archdeacon of Cornwall, Prebendary of the Cathe
dral, and Vicar of S. Gluvias with Budock, Cornwall. The
date of his appointments will be given as they occur.

326 Difpute with the

mother church of Devonport. It appears that, in the
year 1811, the churchyard of the parifh being found
too fmall to meet the mortality of the place, Sir John
St. Aubyn, the lord of the manor, confented to give
a piece of ground for the purpofe of adding to the
churchyard, in furtherance of which he conveyed the
ground in queftion to the parifhioners for 5,000 years.
Thus matters flood till the autumn of the year 1831,
when it was found necefTary ftill further to enlarge the
burial-ground ; and application was made to the lord
of the manor, who again confented to meet the wifhes
of the parifhioners. But, on inquiry, the deed of
1 8 1 1 , which conveyed the ground to the parifhioners,
could not be found. It was either loft or deftroyed,
and, after deliberation, it was thought to be 'the fafer
courfe to obtain a renewal of the old deed. It was
necefTary that the diocefan mould be a party to the
conveyance, under an Act of Parliament of 4jrd
George III, and application was made to him for his
confent. The bifhop replied that he had no intereft
in the matter, and would act in it as he might be
advifed to act by Dr. Lufhington, upon a cafe to be
fubmitted to that learned civilian. A cafe was accord
ingly laid before Dr. Lufhington, without whofe ad
vice the bifhop would not depart from the ordinary
rule. That learned gentleman was of opinion that
the tranfaction would not be legal, unlefs the ground
were conveyed to the incumbent, and his fuccefTors, in-
ftead of the farijhioners. A fecond cafe, however, was
laid before Dr. Lufhington, in which the bifhop, after

Pari/hioners of Stoke Darner el. 327

fetting out facts, ftated that he did not inquire whether
he had the power to give or withhold his fanction from
the proceedings, but that he wifhed to afk whether,
under all the circumftances, Dr. Lufhington would
advife him to interfere one way or the other. The
anfwer was fuch that the bifhop deemed it right to
decline any interference. On this being made known
to the parifhioners, a cafe was directed by them to be
laid before Dr. Lufhington, who, on perufal of it,
gave his opinion that, though in ftrict law the convey
ance ought to be to the incumbent, yet, as the original
deed, which had received the fanction of a former
bifhop, had conveyed the ground to the parijhioners,
and as, on the faith of that deed, burials had taken
place there for a number of years, the equity of the
cafe required that the new deed mould be drawn up
in conformity with the purport of that which was loft.
The gentleman who acted on behalf of the parifhioners
prefented this opinion for the Bimop's perufal ; but he
declined to pay any attention to it. cc I will not look,"
he very properly faid, " at an opinion given on a ftate-
ment of facts not previoufly fubmitted to me for con-
fideration." He added that, if the parifhioners had
any new facts to lay before him, he would confider
them, and act accordingly. He alfo declared his entire
willingnefs to abide by the advice of Dr. Lufhington.
Upon this the inhabitants of Stoke Damerel held a
meeting in veftry, when refolutions were paffed highly
derogatory to the bifhop, and fuch as made him feel
that he was called upon to apply to the Court of

728 Libellous Refolutions.

*j j

King's Bench to vindicate his character. The veftry
meeting took place on the 1 9th of October, and the
following refolutions were agreed to, Mr. Clouter being
in the chair : —

" Refolved, — That the meeting cannot but regret, from
the ftatement made by Mr. Rodd, that the Bifhop of Exeter
mould fo far have forgotten himfelf as to deny to the parifhi-
oners that juftice which they have a right to demand at his
hands— viz. his fanction to the deed of conveyance. The
parifhioners cannot reprobate fuch conduct in language too
ftrong.

" Refolved, — That the utmoft cenfure be conveyed to the
Bifhop for fuch his difhonourable and degrading conduct."

Thefe refolutions were figned by the Churchwarden,
as chairman of the meeting ; and it was ordered that
they fhould be entered on the parifli books, and be
printed and publifhed in the Devonport Telegraph, and
in a Plymouth journal.

Application on behalf of the bifhop was made to
the Court of King's Bench, at fittings in Banco, on
Friday, Nov. 25, by the Attorney-general, when a
rule to mow caufe why a criminal information fhould
not be filed againft John Clouter was granted.

On Monday, January 30, in the following year,
Mr. Campbell appeared to mow caufe againft the rule.
He contended that the defendant could not be held
liable, as from the nature of the fituation in which he
was placed he was prevented from interfering in the
bufinefs of the meeting. On the contrary, he was
oppofed to the refolutions, and had refufed to fign
them. The learned gentleman then went at great

Ill-feeling againft the Eifliop. 329

length into the circumftances which had led to the
meeting, at which the refolutions had been adopted,
with a view to fhow that great excitement prevailed in
the diftrict from the refufal of the bifhop to confecrate
the burial-ground. The Attorney-general and Sir
James Scarlett fupported the rule, and ftated that the
bimop had refufed to confecrate the ground under the
opinion of Dr. Lufhington. The Court were unani-
moufly of opinion that nothing could juftify the lan
guage complained of by the bifhop, and directed the
rule to be made abfolute.

The proceedings of the bifhop in this cafe created
much ill-feeling againft him throughout the diocefe.
Confidering the unpopularity of his appointment, it
would no doubt have been wifer to have taken no notice
of Mr. Clouter or his refolutions ; but the bifhop may
have thought it more prudent at once to crufh the
rifing evil, and awe his adverfaries into filence, if not
into approval of his conduct, by the ftrong arm of
the law.

33°

CHAPTER XXII.

The Reform Bill. Impatience of the Country. Second Read
ing of the Bill in the Commons. The Bijhop remains at
Exeter. Freedom of the City prefented to him. End of the
frft Tear of his Epifcopate. Opening of the Tear 1832. The
Reform ®£uejlion. Bill carried in the Commons. The Min-
iflerial Plan of Education for Ireland. Diffatisf action of
the Roman Catholics. The Kildare Street Society. Agita
tion in Ireland. Seditious Addrefs of one of the Leaders.
Infatuation of Englijh Statefmen. Real Object of the Agi
tators to exclude Religious In ft ruction from Schools. The
Rhemijh and Douay Verfions of the Scriptures. Feeling o/
the Authorities in Rome in reference to the Educational Syftem
in Ireland. Circular Letter from the Pope. Effect of It
upon the People of Ireland. Neglect and Ignorance of the
Scriptures in that Country. Infamous Treatment of them.
Indignation of the Epifcopal Bench at the Conduct of Govern
ment. Conduct of the Bijhop of Exeter. His Forebodings

of the Mifchievous Confequences of the Bill. His Speech in
the Houfe of Lords. Effect of it. Lord Radnor's Remarks
upon the Bijhop. Lord King refers again to the Parijh of
Woodbury. The Bijhop' s Explanations.

jjND now it will be neceflary to return once
more to the fubject of Reform. The
Parliament, which had been prorogued
on the 2Oth of October, 1831, aflembled
again on the 6th of December. This was a fhort
recefs. No longer interval, however, could be granted,
for the clamour of political unions and the impatience
of the lower orders made it plain to the minifters that
an impelling force had been fet in motion which it

The Reform Bill. 331

would be vain for them to hope to control or refift.
If they were to retain their office they muft be content,
for the prefent at leaft, to be thruft forward by the
rabble. Accordingly, a new Reform Bill was intro
duced into the Commons immediately on the meeting
of Parliament. A vigorous debate followed, which
ended in the fecond reading being carried, and then
Parliament adjourned for the Chriftmas holidays.

The bifhop did not go up to London to attend this
fhort feflion, but continued in the active fuperinten-
dence of his diocefe, the great adminiftrative ability
which he exhibited eliciting marks of warm admiration
from all who had not made up their minds to be dif-
pleafed with everything that he did. On the ifth of
December the freedom of the city was conferred upon
his lordfhip by a unanimous refolution of the cor
poration ; and on the 22nd of this month he prefented
the Rev. Nicholas Lightfoot to the Rectory of Stock-
leigh Pomeroy, Devon, being the fourth piece of
preferment which had fallen to his difpofal. Thus
ended the firft year of his Epifcopate, without the
occurrence of any further fubjecl of note, unlefs it
deferve to be recorded that no churches or chapels
were confecrated during this period.

The following year was deftined to be a very re
markable one. Parliament aflembled on the iyth of
January, after the recefs, and the reform queftion was
proceeded with at once. Long and weary were the
debates which followed. It was an oft-told tale. All
that could be faid had been faid over and over again,

332 Plan of Education for Ireland.

and yet the fpeakers were never weary. On the 9th
of March the Committee had gone through the bill,
having entered upon the examination of it on the 2Oth
of January. The report was confidered on the I4th
of March, and on the I9th the motion for the third
reading of the bill was met by an amendment, moved
by Lord Marion, that it mould be read a third time
that day fix months. The amendment was feconded
by Sir John Malcolm, and was followed by a fharp
debate, which was continued on the 2Oth and 22nd.
On a divifion there was a majority of 1 16 for the third
reading. This was decifive, and on the 2jrd of March
the bill was patted. But while this meafure was occu
pying the attention of the Commons, another queftion,
of fcarcely lefs importance, was being debated in the
Houfe of Lords — the minifterial plan of education for
Ireland, which was brought forward on March the
22nd.

An opinion had for fome time been gaining ground
that the exifting fyftem of Scriptural education was ill
adapted to the peculiarities of that country, and that
the Parliamentary grant made in the year 1 8 1 6, and
continued from that time, had not produced the defired
effect. It does not appear, however, that any com
plaints were made until the year 1825, from which
time, until 1831, the clamour rapidly increafed, and
the Government determined to abolim the Kildare
Street Society (the object of which inftitution was to
encourage local exertions in the eftablifhmentof fchools),
and fuperfede the exifting fyftem. In coming to this

Plan of Education for Ire land. 333

conclufion, there can be little doubt but that they
were yielding to the preflure of demagogues who
defired a change fromfome religion to none. Reform
was the order of the day, and education muft be con
tent to come in for its mare of it, even though in the
procefs it mould chance to be Gripped of everything
that made it Chriftian. A plaufible pretext was ready
at hand, and its favourers were not flow to make the
moft of it.

The Roman Catholics confidered the unreftridled
reading of Holy Scripture to be repugnant to their
form of religion ; and the confequence was that they
refufed to allow their children to go to thofe fchools
where inftruclion in the Scriptures formed the bads of
education. To meet this difficulty it was fuggefted
that two different fyftems fhould be introduced, one
for the children of Proteftants, and the other for the
children of Roman Catholics. This was objected to
by the Roman Catholic prelates themfelves, who
thought that the feparation of children was injudi
cious, and calculated to deftroy fome of the beft prin
ciples of human nature.

Thus the dragon's teeth were fown, nor was there
long to wait for the crop. The Irifh people were
taught by popular fpeech-mongers, whofe ftock-in-trade
confifted of bitter hatred to England feafoned with
blafphemy and ribaldry, that they had a grievance, and
this cc grievance " was oftentatioufly paraded before the
world till it was fo thread-bare that it ceafed to be any
thing but a fcarecrow. Sefllon after feflion, however,

334 Seditious Addrefs .

it continued to furnifh an unceafing political capital to
a fet of noify demagogues, whofe frothy orations pafTed
for eloquence in Ireland, but moved all reafonable
Englimmen to* laughter. One of the leaders of this
faction, for fuch it really was, upon being advifed to
follow moderate meafures, had the effrontery to tell his
advifer that it was by violence alone that the Roman
Catholics of Ireland had advanced their caufe to its
prefent profperous ftate ; and this was true enough.

" Remember," he faid, " the conditions which were once
required of us even by our prefent friends, and contraft with
them the terms which we can now command. Was it our
peaceable demeanour, our decorous language, which placed
us on this vantage ground ? No ! it was the boldnefs with
which we aflerted our claims, the unflinching, uncom-
promifmg tone of all our meafures, that has enabled us thus
to look back with triumph, and forward with confidence.
If, indeed, anything could have been gained by following the
courfe which you gentle counfellors recommend, we might
have been ready to play the pliant part, and liften to the men
to whom we now dtttate"

This is plain fpeaking — plain enough, it might have
been thought, to have opened the eyes of Englifh
ftatefmen to what was going on in Ireland. But they
feem to have been ftricken with a blindnefs fo obftinate
that it feemed judicial. And fo political agitators and
Romim priefts were allowed to play into one another's
hands, and to unfettle the country on the queftion of
education, happy enough if in the general confufion
they themfelves could fecure fome fubftantial fpoils.

What a fection of the agitators did want to do — but

Rhemijh and Douay Verjions, 335

they had not courage to avow it plainly — was to ex
clude religious inftruction altogether from fchools.
There was to be what was called " moral and literary
inftrudion," (an unfledged Mancheftef and Salford
fcheme,) but nothing to teach the rifing generation of
Ireland a word about the hopes and promifes of a
future ftate, at all events according to the doctrine of
the united Church of England and Ireland.

If there was to be a bible at all, it muft not be the
grand old tranflation fandioned by law, and approved
by the confentient voice of a long line of fcholars — a
tranflation which has extorted even from infidels an
unwilling teftimony to its fublimity and beauty ; but
the Rhemifh and Douay verfions — /wverfions in fome
places they might better be called — which, apart from
doctrinal differences, are as unlike the authorized ver-
fion of the Holy Scriptures as they well can be, while
fetting up any claim to be the fame book.

And here it will be inftrudive to confider the feel
ings which actuated the higheft authorities in Rome in
reference to the educational fyftem in Ireland. They
will be beft explained by the following circular letter
from the Pope to the Irifh prelates on the fubject of
bible fchools.

" Rome, Court of the Sacred Congregation for the Propa
gation of the Faith. Sept. 18, 1819.
" My Lord, — The prediction of our Lord Jefus Chrift, in
the Parable of the Sower, that ' fowed good feed in his field ;
but while people flept, his enemy came, and fowed tares upon
the wheat,' (Matt. xvi. 24,) is, to the very great injury
indeed of the Catholic Faith, feen verified in thefe our days,

336 Circular Letter from the Pope.

particularly in Ireland. For information has reached the
ears of the Sacred Congregation that bible fchools, fupported
by the funds of Catholics, have been eftablifhed in almoft
every part of Ireland, in which, under the pretence of charity,
the inexperienced of both fexes, but particularly peafants and
paupers, are allured by the blandifhments, and even gifts of
the matters, and infedted with the fatal poifon of depraved
doctrines.

" It is further ftated that the directors of thefe fchools
are, generally fpeaking, methodifts, who introduce bibles,
tranflated into Englifli by c the Bible Society/ and abounding
in errors ; with the fole view of feducing the youth ; and
entirely eradicating from their minds the truths of the ortho
dox Faith.

" Under thefe circumftances, your Lordfhip already per
ceives with what folicitude and attention paftors are bound
to watch, and carefully protect their flock from the c fnares
of wolves, who come in the clothing of fheep.' If the
paftors fleep, the enemy will quickly creep in by ftealth, and
fow the tares ; foon will the tares be feen growing among
the wheat, and choke it.

" Every poflible exertion muft, therefore, be made to keep
the youth away from thefe deftru£tive fchools ; to warn
parents againft fuffering their children, on any account what
ever, to be led into error. But for the purpofe of efcaping
the * fnares J of the adverfaries, no plan feems more appro
priate than that of eftablifhing fchools, wherein falutary in-
ftru&ion may be imparted to paupers, and illiterate country
perfons.

" In the name, then, of the bowels of the mercy of our
Lord Jefus Chrift, we exhort and befeech your Lordfhip to
guard your flock with diligence, and all due difcretion, from
thofe who are in the habit of thrufting themfelves infidioufly
into the fold of Chrift, in order thereby to lead the unwary
fheep aftray : and, mindful of the forewarning of Peter the
Apoftle, given in thefe words, 'There (hall be alfo lying

Its Effeff in Ireland. 337

matters among you, who fhall bring in fects of perdition '
(2 Pet. ii.'H), do you labour, with all your might, to keep
the orthodox youth from being corrupted by them — an object
which will, I hope, be eafily effected by the eftablifhment of
Catholic fchools throughout your diocefe. And, confidently
trufting that, in a matter of fuch vaft importance, your
Lordfhip will, with unbounded zeal, endeavour to prevent
the wheat from being choked by the tares, I pray the all-good
and Omnipotent God to guard and preferve you fafe many
years,

" Your Lordfhip's

" Moft obedient humble Servant,

" F. CARDINAL FONTANA, Prefect.

"C. M. PEDICINI, Secretary."

This document is pretty forcible, it muft be ad-
litted, even for a papal refcript, and its effect upon
the people of Ireland may eafily be imagined. Trained
to regard the voice of the Pope as an infallible oracle,
it was not likely that the authorized verfion of the
Holy Scriptures would henceforward be received by
them with much veneration or favour.

" That the Scriptures fliould be neglected," fays Dr.
Phillpotts, in his Letter to Mr. Canning, " and, in many
inftances, utterly unknown, is only a matter of courfe. Mr.
Donelan, a Roman Catholic gentleman^ nephew of Lord Fingal,
one of the infpectors of the Kildare Place Schools, ftates in
his evidence (p. 488) before the Commiflioners of Educa
tion, 'that the peafantry could fcarcely diftinguifh between a
Teftament and any other book of the fame fize on a religious
fubject ; that, in Connaught, the peafant does not know what
a Bible or Teftament is. I think/ he adds, * we may fay, in
general, they do not underftand that the Bible contains the
Word of God, the hiftory of our Saviour, the hiftory of the
creation, and the redemption of the world/ Another wit

338 Neglett and Ignorance of Scriptures.

nefs (Captain George Pringle, p. 686) informs the Commif-
fioners, that he ' had met with a great many who never faw
or heard of the Scriptures ; fome did not know what he was
fpeaking about, when fpeaking of the Bible. At laft they
cried, "Oh, yes, you are fpeaking about the Black Book"
Some of them think that Luther was the author of it.' c In
an inveftigation, which occupied nearly three whole days,'
fays Mr. Gordon, p. 716, c during which I entered as many
cabins as that time would admit, only one copy of the Scrip
tures was found, a Proteftant Teftament, that belonged to a
child in attendance on a Proteftant fchool. The perfons In
the cabin were afraid to touch it; they handed it down on a
board, becaufe they thought it an heretical book'

"That this ignorance is encouraged by the Church of
Rome," continues Dr. Phillpotts, " as highly ferviceable to
its interefts, is manifeft not merely from the encyclical letter
of the Pope (quoted above), but alfo from the conduct of the
priefts, as narrated in the evidence before the Commif-
fioners. * One lad of nineteen told me,' fays Captain
Pringle, c " If we read that Black Book, the prieft tells me
we mall be vifited with thunder and lightning." ' ' The
Roman Catholic clergy,' fays another witnefs (H. M.
Mafon, Efq., p. 746), * have denounced the Irifh Scrip
tures from the altar in Kerry and Meath, and have
called our New Teftament, becaufe it is in fome inftances
bound in black, the Black Book^ and have produced it as
fuch in its black coat, connecting it with the powers of
darknefs.' "

More of the fame kind might eafily be added, but
the picture is too unfightly already to require the in
troduction of frefh objects of horror. But, hideous as
it is, it is drawn from life ; for fuch was the ftate of
things revealed by a Commiflion appointed by Govern
ment, and for this deplorable ignorance it was only

Indignation of Epif copal Bench. 339

too plain that the Romifh hierarchy were anfwerable.
And now the queftion arofe, fhould Englifhmen, by a
deliberate vote in Parliament, help to make this dark-
nefs darker ? And, what is more to the purpofe, were
the bifhops to {land idly by ? Was no voice to be
raifed in defence of God's holy Word ? Was it to be
facrificed by ftatefmen at the call of a political faction ?
Was that which makes men wife unto falvation hence
forward to be banifhed from every Irim fchool ? No.
Indignant voices were raifed from the Epifcopal Bench,
and none more righteoufly indignant than that of the
Bifliop of Exeter. His was the noble part of expof-
ing the infidious attempts of the Roman priefthood to
fecularize the fcheme of education, in order to remain
fole matters of the field. Moft forcibly did he mow
the real bearings of a bill fraught with fuch mifchievous
confequences, that it might well be doubted if its pro
moters knew to what lengths they were committing
themfelves. It is probable that they did not know.
But the penetrating glance of the biftiop could fee the
evil which was coming, and, in a fpeech which would
give him a lafting claim on the gratitude of pofterity,
even if no other memorial of his public life remained,
he denounced, with more than his ufual energy, and
with a vehemence which mufl have reminded his
hearers of one of thofe heaven-infpired mefTengers of
old, the fin which would attach to the nation if fuch a
bill mould ever become the law of the land.

Early in the debate the bifhop fpoke as follows : —

u My Lords, I can affure the noble marquifs who has

340 The Bijhop of Exeter's Speech

juft fat down that I will adhere to the advice which he has
been pleafed to give to your Lordfliips, and will confine my-
felf ftri£Uy to the queftion before the Houfe. I have in
truth no temptation to wander from it ; for the queftion
itfelf is far more than fufficient for me to hope to do juftice
to it, and it is befides far more interefting in itfelf than any
collateral matter could help to make it. My Lords, it is, I
can aflure your Lordfhips, felt to be fo by thoufands out of
this Houfe and by not a few I truft within it. It is a quef
tion which, as it will be my duty to endeavour to fatisfy
your Lordlhips before I conclude, has not only excited, but
has alfo juftified the greateft anxiety and alarm both in Ire
land and throughout the empire at large.

" Before I proceed, my Lords, to enter upon the difcuf-
fion of this moft important fubjecl:, I will venture to make
one remark in reference to an obfervation of the right re
verend Prelate behind me (the Biftiop of Chefter), for whom
I may be permitted to fay I entertain the moft fmcere re-
fpecl:. That right reverend Prelate has faid that he could
not confent on this occafion to raife his voice in condemna
tion of His Majefty's Minifters, although he difapproved of
the plan propofed by them. My Lords, I too wifh to be
underftood in the obfervations which I am about to addrefs
to you, as meaning to fay nothing unneceflarily difrefpedlful
to His Majefty's Minifters. My remarks will be made
againft the meafure and not againft the men. And yet, my
Lords, I (hall not be reftrained by any apprehenfion of in
curring the cenfure of a noble Lord who has recently ad-
drefled you, of being called factious or belonging to a faction
—an accufation pretty liberally beftowed of late on thofe who
have confidered it their duty, on public grounds, to oppofe a
public meafure — I fay, my Lords, I (hall not be reftrained by
any apprehenfion of being charged as a member of a faction
from fpeaking as becomes a member of your Lordfhips'
Houfe, and if I {hall find it neceflary to offer any very ftrong
obfervations againft the meafure, I fhall not fcruple to do fo,

in Houfe of Lords. 341

trufting that the noble earl at the head of His Majefty's
Government and his colleagues will underftand that I wifh
my obfervations to apply as little as poflible to them, but
as much as poflible to the meafure itfelf. I fay this the
more readily, becaufe I do not think that there are many
among thofe noble lords, although officially refponfible for
the meafure, who know what that meafure really is. My
Lords, I do not make this charge on flight grounds, for
when I hear noble lords who have fpoken in defence of the
new plan, particularly the noble and learned Lord (Lord
Plunket), declare that the principle of it has been fan&ioned
by all the commiflions and committees that have hitherto
devoted their labours to the confideration of this fubjecT:, it
is plain to every underftanding, that they know not what
this new plan really is. My Lords, inftead of being the fame
in principle as that which has been recommended by the
reports of previous commiflions and committees, I affirm
that the prefent meafure not only has not the fan&ion of
thofe reports, but is in direct oppofition to them all. If
therefore, my Lords, I eftablifh this point to the fatisfa&ion
of your Lordfhips, I think I (hall ftand excufed for faying
that I very much doubt, or rather I do much more than
doubt, whether the noble lords know what this meafure
really is.

" My Lords, I will now beg leave to refer to the letter ad-
drafted to the noble duke at the head of the new board of
education, whom I am moft happy to fee in his place, from
the right honourable the Secretary for Ireland. And I will
beg leave from that letter, which is the formal and official
expofition of the new plan of national education in Ireland,
to mow what that plan is. It may be confidered as dividing
itfelf into three diftincl: particulars,— as refpe&s, firft, the
moral and literary inftru&ion which it is propofed to afford
to Proteftants and to Roman Catholics in common; fecondly,
the feparate religious inftru&ion of Proteftants ; thirdly, the
feparate religious inftru&ion of the Roman Catholics. From

342 The Biflwp of Exeter s Speech

an examination of thefe feveral parts, I will undertake to
(how that the real principle of this national plan of educa
tion is to exclude Scripture altogether from fome of the
fchools fupported by the State, and to lay the leaft poflible
ftrefs on Scripture as a part of that education in all. In
truth, my Lords, ftrange as it may feem, this official expofi-
tion of the plan, I mean Mr. Stanley's letter, from the point
at which it commences, the development of his plan is fo
conftru&ed, as to avoid the very mention of Scripture at all.
" Firft, as refpe&s the common inftrudtion of Proteftants
and Catholics, this is the provifion : — * They will require
that the fchools be kept open for a certain number of hours
on four or five days of the week at the difcretion of the
commiflioners, for moral and literary education only. They
will exercife the moft entire control over all books to be
ufed in the fchools, none to be employed in the combined
moral and literary inftru&ion except under the fan<£Uon of
the board.' Now your Lordfhips will fee here is no mention
of any book of Scripture to be introduced ; no, not even of a
book containing extracts of Scripture. I know it has been
a ground of complaint againft the plan that extracts are pro-
pofed to be given from the Scriptures and not the Scriptures
themfelves. This is matter of complaint which has been
frequently adverted to in petitions to this Houfe, and fome
of your Lordfhips alfo have rn^ade the fame complaint. My
Lords, my complaint is of a contrary kind. I complain
not that books of extracts of Scripture are to be ufed in thefe
fchools of moral inftru&ion, but that they are not to be
there ufed. My Lords, if volumes of well-chofen extracts
from the Bible were to be ufed in the fchools at the time of
common inftru&ion, I fhould not think it reafonable to
complain, that the whole Bible is to be referved for the
times of feparate religious inftru&ion. I ftiould think this
no more than a fair conceflion to the peculiar circumftances
of the cafe ; but, my Lords, there is abfolutely no fecurity
whatever, that all books containing extracts from the Scrip-

in Houfe of Lords. 343

tures are not to be excluded — rather, there is a&ual proof
that all fuch books will be excluded, as far as regards the
moral inftru&ion of both Proteftants and Roman Catholics.

" I will take upon myfelf to (how this prefently, but in the
meanwhile, let me go on to ftate what the provifions of this
plan are for the religious inftru&ion of Proteftants. 'They,'
the Commiflioners, * will exercife the moft entire control over
all books to be ufed in the fchools ; in the feparate religious
inftru&ion none are to be employed, but with the approbation
of thofe members of the Board who are of the fame religious
perfuafion with the children for whofe ufe^they are intended/
Why, then, my Lords, it is clear that there is no other
fecurity for the ufe of the Bible, even in the religious in
ftru&ion of Proteftants, than that derived from the chara&er
of the individuals compofmg that commiffion, and upon that
point I (hall fpeak prefently.

" I obferve, that fome noble lords are difpofed to think
that I am inclined to cavil upon this point, but I think when
I come to enter further into the queftion, I (hall prove to
them that I have too good ground for the opinion which I
have exprefled.

"With regard to the feparate religious inftru&ion of
Roman Catholics, the provifions are the fame as for the
feparate religious inftru&ion of the Proteftants ; neither the
Old, nor the New Teftament is required — all is to be left to
the Commiflioners of the two feveral perfuafions.

" Such is a general view of this new plan of national
education. I proceed to a more particular inquiry into its
three feveral parts.

" In refpe& to the firft part, I think I mall make it plain
that the principle of this meafure, fo far as regards the joint
moral and literary inftru&ion of Proteftants and Roman
Catholics, is completely to exclude the ufe of the Bible,
whether entire, or in extra&s. In doing this, I fear that I
muft pray the indulgence of your Lordftiips for fome tref-
pafs on your time, becaufe I feel it neceflary to have recourfe

344 The Bijhop of Exeter s Speech

to documentary evidence ; and yet, however tedious that may
be — and ftill more tedious the obfervations which I may
confider it neceflary to make on thofe documents — I venture
to be confident that your Lordftiips will patiently bear with
me, not only becaufe I have not trefpafled on your atten .on
before, and am not likely often to do fo again — but much
more in confideration of the great importance of the queftion
now before you.

" My Lords, I have faid that the Holy Scriptures, whether
in the entire volume, or in the form of extracts, are, in facl:,
excluded from the propofed plan of general education ; and
I think that this will appear in the cleareft poffible light, if
I {how that the exclufion or non-exclufion of them muft
depend on the good pleafure of the Board, and that there is
one perfon placed upon this Board who is not only likely,
but whofe duty it is, to exclude them.

" My Lords, it muft be borne in mind that this letter of
the right hon. fecretary refers to the a&s of a preceding
commiffion which took place fome years ago. I mean the
commiffion of 1824-27, at which latter period their labours
were concluded. My Lords, the reports of that commiffion
furnifhed ample details of the opinions of the Roman Catholics
with whom they communicated. The Commiffioners felt
the great importance of the principle, that a literary and
moral education fhould be bafed on the Scriptures. In their
formal communication with Dr. Murray, on the fubje6t of
common inftru&ion, a minute of which was made at the
time, they thus exprefs themfelves : — l The Commiffioners
then ftated that they could not confider any fyftem of edu
cation as deferving the name, which (hould not feek to lay
the foundation of all moral obligation in religious inftru&ion
— (fo little notion had thefe wife and good men of any fyftem
of common inftruclion which fhould be moral and literary
only). They, therefore, inquired of Dr. Murray, whether
it would be objected to, on the part of the Roman Catholic
clergy, that the more advanced of the Proteftant and Roman

in Houfe of Lords. 345

Catholic children mould, at certain times during fchool hours,
read portions of the Holy Scriptures together, out of their
refpe£tive verfions, fubjecl: to proper regulations, and in the
prefence of their refpe&ive Proteftant and Roman Catholic
teachers ? ' Dr. Murray anfwered, * that ferious difficulties
would exift in the way of fuch an arrangement ; but he fug-
gefted an expedient — that of introducing collections from the
Scripture and books of extracts.' Dr. Murray faid, ' No
objection would be made to a harmony of the gofpels being
ufed in the general education, which the children could
receive in common, nor to a volume containing extracts from
the Pfalms, Proverbs, and Book of Ecclefiafticus, nor to a
volume containing the hiftory of the creation, of the deluge,
of the patriarchs, of Jofeph, and of the deliverance of the
Ifraelites, extracted from the Old Teftament, and that he was
fatisfied no difficulties in arranging the details of fuch works
would arife on the part of the Roman Catholic clergy.'
Thus it appears that the expedient of having books of extracts
and collections from Scripture was firft fuggefted by Dr.
Murray ; and that he then contemplated giving thefe extracts
from the authorized Proteftant verfion, is plain from what
occurred at a fubfequent meeting.

" My Lords, on the occafion to which I have already
referred, Dr. Murray came alone, and made this ftatement
before the Commiffioners ; but, in a few days afterwards,
he returned, bringing with him the three other titular Roman
Catholic archbiftiops of Ireland, and he faid, — c It appears
to be the wifh of thefe gentlemen,' — not at all implying that
it was fo much a matter of wifh to himfelf, and certainly
implying that it was not a matter of confcience or principle
to any of them, — * it appears to be the wifh of thefe gentle
men, that anything given in the fhape of Scripture mould be
in the Douay verfion for the Catholic children.' Thus the
matter ftood on the 8th of January, 1825 ; yet, on the i6th
of December, of the fame year, it will be found that he
pofitively objected, as of confcience and neceflity, to any-

346 'The Eljhop of Exeter s Speech

thing being read, as Scripture, in the prefence of the Roman
Catholic children, unlefs it was in the Douay verfion ; he
retracted, in fhort, all he had faid, and objected to the ufe
of any books that fhould give any part of our Lord's own
words, unlefs it was in that verfion. But he went further,
and faid that it was contrary to the difcipline of the Catholic
Church that any books whatever fhould be placed in the
hands of the Roman Catholic children in which there was
even a quotation from the Bible of the Eftablifhed Church,
where that Bible differed from the Douay verfion. Thus,
it became apparent that no books of extracts from Scripture,
as Scripture — no moral inftru&ion bafed on the Word of
God, as fuch — could be admitted into the fchools of common
inftru<Stion, unlefs the bifhops of the Proteftant Church
would confent altogether to forego the ufe of their own ver
fion — the only verfion, I muft be permitted to remind your
Lordfhips, which the law of the land acknowledges as the
Word of God. Not a text, or even a reference to it, would
be tolerated by the Roman Catholics, if the reference to it
were made as to the Scriptures — fo decidedly were they
oppofed, within the ihort period of ten months, to their
former ftatement in refpe6t of the facilities which they were
willing to afford to one common principle of inftru&ion,
and in order to promote the objects which the Commif-
fioners had in view.

" And yet, my Lords, I muft be permitted to remark that,
whenever it may feem neceffary, or poflibly expedient, for
Dr. Murray and his friends to acl: on a fomewhat different
principle from that which they have here announced, they
find no difficulty in doing fo. No doubt, your Lordfhips
will all remember that it was made a matter of great tri
umph, and adduced by the noble and learned lord, the Lord
Chancellor of Ireland, as a convincing proof of the liberal
and Chriftian fpirit of Dr. Murray, that a paper containing
the firft leffon fet forth to be ufed under the new fyftem was
moved for adoption by Dr. Murray ; which leffon is to be

in Houfe of Lords. 347

fufpended in every fchool, and enforced upon the mind of
every fcholar — a leflbn, moft certainly, of a highly laudable
nature — a leflbn of Chriftian benevolence towards thofe with
whom we differ in religious belief. Now, that very leflbn
contains citations from the Holy Scriptures in the verfion of
the Church of England, even in texts where that verfion
differs from the Rhemifh (I fay Rhemifh, becaufe that word,
in ftri&nefs, refers to the tranflation of the New Teftament,
as the Douay verfion does to the Old), and, as I have faid,
is to be ftuck upon the walls of every fchool. This, I re
peat, was propofed by Dr. Murray, although he had joined
before in faying, or, by his filence, had acquiefced in the
faying of his brother prelates, to the Commiflioners of 1825,
that it was contrary to the difcipline of the Roman Catholic
Church that the Roman Catholic children fhould have any
book or extract with fuch a reference placed in their hands.
I ftate this to fhow how little confidence can be placed in
the fmcerity of the Roman Catholic prelates, in any tranfac-
tions in which the intereft of their Church are concerned.

" My Lords, it will be recollected that the Commiffion of
1824 abandoned the experiment which they had endea
voured to carry into effect, becaufe they found it impoflible
to get extracts from the Scriptures to be read in the fchools.
The confent of the Roman Catholics could not be obtained
to the ufe of our verfion of the Holy Scriptures, even though
they were compelled to admit that their own verfion was
not, ftrictly fpeaking, an authorized verfion ; for it never
had received any fanction from Rome, and it had been re
peatedly altered fmce its firft publication. Our bifhops, on
the other hand, could not confent that the Proteftant Bible
—the only Bible acknowledged by the law of the land —
(hould be abandoned at the demand, or to conciliate the co
operation, of the Roman Catholics. The confequence was,
as we very well know, that the Commiflioners of 1824
decided that the experiment could not go on ; for, as
a volume, or volumes, of extracts from Scripture were

348 The El/hop of Exeter s Speech

eflential, in their judgments, to the proper teaching of mo
rality to Chriftian children, and as no fuch volume could be
agreed upon, nothing remained for them to do but to relin-
quifh an attempt which was thus proved to be hopelefs.
Now, on this occafion Dr. Murray faid, in a letter addrefled
to the Commiffioners — ' I will avail myfelf of this oppor
tunity to exprefs an opinion, which you will not, I am fure,
confider at variance with that refpecl: which I fmcerely
entertain for the Board of Education inquiry : it is that the
Board has created for itfelf a very needlefs difficulty by re
quiring, as a matter of neceffity, any fcriptural compilation
to be ufed in fchools for the purpofe of general inftru&ion.'

" It is quite manifeft, therefore, that Dr. Murray thinks
any fuch fcriptural volumes unneceflary ; and, as he has alfo
declared that any fcriptural compilation from the Bible of
the Eftablifhed Church ought not to be ufed, he will not,
and cannot, aflent to its introduction into the fchools of
general inftru£tion. In fhort, my Lords, he muft and will,
if he have the power, exclude the Scripture from fuch fchools
altogether.

" But, my Lords, that he will have .the power, I proceed
to fhow to your Lordfhips — and this not merely from con-
fidering the deference which would necefTarily be paid to
his opinion refting on alleged grounds of religious fcruples,
but alfo from a very peculiar circumftance, which will be
found to deferve the clofeft attention of your Lordfhips. It
certainly is moft remarkable that Dr. Murray, or fome one
in the intereft of Dr. Murray, has aflumed for him a power
which was not intended to be given by Mr. Stanley's letter :
no lefs, in fhort, than a veto on all books propofed to be
ufed for general inftru&ion ; and this object has been effe&ed
by foifting in an important word into the regulations of the
original.

" I am very happy to fee in his place this day the noble
Duke (the Duke of Leinfter), who is at the head of the
Board of Irifh Education, becaufe I fhall be fet right in refpecl:

in HouJ'e of Lords. 349

of what I call a m oft unwarrantable and unauthorized alter
ation of the inftru&ions contained in that letter if I am in-
correcl:.

" My Lords, it will be obferved that Mr. Stanley's letter
fays : — 4 It is not defigned to exclude from the lift of books
for the combined inftru&ion, fuch portion of facred hiftory,
or of religious and moral teaching, as may be approved of by
the Board/

" Now under this regulation, certainly if the Board at
large mould think fit that a portion of the Scriptures mould
be ufed, any objection on the part of Dr. Murray would be
ufelefs. [The Duke of Leinfter.— c Hear ! hear ! '] I am
happy to find that the noble duke acquiefces in this, and calls
the attention of your Lordmips to it ; for I am quite fure-that,
after I mail have mown what has been done, you will find
your attention has not been ill beftowed. Your Lordmips
will obferve that a public notice has been given by the Board
of Education in Ireland, that they are ready to receive appli
cations for aid, on the part of thofe who may be difpofed to
eftablifh fchools under the direction of the Board.

u My Lords, I hold in my hands the public advertifement
of the Board to that effedt. A noble lord near me fays, in
a tone fomething like that of taunt, that I am quoting from
a newfpaper. It is very true ; but it is the very fame docu
ment as was cited for a different purpofe, without objection
from any of your Lordmips, fome nights ago, by the noble
and learned Lord (Lord Plunket) ; and I muft take leave to
fay, that an advertifement from a newfpaper is as regular a
document, and as fit to be cited here, as any other paper
which has not been formally laid on your Lordmips' table.
I repeat, therefore, that my newfpaper is as authorized a
document as the noble and learned lord's meet, though this
latter be of handfomer form, and better type. Now, my
Lords, in this advertifement, purporting to be the formal an
nouncement of the Board's new plan of National Education,
and fubfcribed by the Secretary to the Board, the reft of the

350 The Bifhop of Exeter s Speech

regulation refpe&ing the control of the Board over the books
of general inftru&ion is given verbatim, according to the terms
of Mr. Stanley's letter ; but, before the word * Board ' is in-
ferted, the word * entire ' and the efFe£t of the alteration, your
Lordfhips will perceive, is to require the confent of all and
every member of the Board, to the ufe of every particular
book ; thus giving, as I faid, a veto to Dr. Murray, and
enabling him, even if he ftand alone, to exclude all books of
extracts of Scripture, or anything elfe which might difpleafe
him, from the lift. [Earl Grey — * Where is the word? I do
not find it here, and this is the paper iflfued by the Board.']

" Why, then, my Lords, if the Board has not in its own
formal a& inferted the word, it is quite plain that there is fome
power which can effect: whatever alteration {hall be deemed
expedient in the ads of the Board, in fpite of the intentions
of the Board itfelf. This advertifement announces to the
world the plan of education, and by it the conduct of the
public in forming fchools will be regulated, [Earl Grey inti
mated that he had found the word in his paper.]

<c Oh, then, my Lords, it is in both papers — in the handfome
official document, and in the more homely one in my hand,
the word is equally to be found ; and I cannot be forry for
the doubt which at firft exifted in the noble earl's mind on
this point, as it muft have increafed your Lordfhips' attention
to the circumftance, and, at the fame time, perhaps, has tefti-
fied the noble earl's fenfe of its importance. I repeat, this
word c entire ' is fomething fuperadded to the inftru&ions of
Mr. Stanley— fomething not in any degree- juftified by thofe
inftru&ions ; and I muft take the liberty of faying, further,
that it would be fatisfaclx>ry, if the noble duke at the head of
the Board could inform us how this unauthorized and moft
improper interpolation was made ; I am perfectly fatisfied that
he was no party to it. I have heard much of the noble
duke's high and honourable character — I am perfuaded not
too much, — and therefore, I feel myfelf warranted in affirm
ing, that he never contemplated fo important a change in the

in Houfe of Lords. 351

inftrudtions and powers which the Board received, as is in
volved in the interpolation of the word 'entire.'

u My Lords, while I am fure it is not the noble duke's act,
I am not fure whofe act it was. But this I will fay, it is not
of Englifh, it is not of Proteftant origin — the taint of Jefuit
is ftrong upon it.

" c The offence is rank ; it fmells to Heaven/

" Such, my Lords, has been the mode by which power has
been given to every fingle member of the Board ; to Dr.
Murray, therefore, in particular, who has declared himfelf
bound in confcience to ufe that power — to exclude all ex
tracts from Scripture, if thofe extracts be in the verfion
which all Proteftants confider, and which alone the law
of this land confiders, as Scripture, from the fchools of
common inftrudtion of Proteftant and Roman Catholic
children.

" My Lords, I proceed to the fecond part of this plan of
National Education — the feparate religious inftruction of Pro
teftant children. Here, too, I muft remind your Lorfhips
that we have heard this new plan repeatedly and ftrongly
defended, efpecially by the noble and learned lord, the Lord
Chancellor of Ireland, becaufe the feveral reports of the
various Commiflioners and Committees of the Houfe of
Commons, aflert principles in perfect accordance with thofe
upon which the Government plan of education has been
founded. Now, I will take the liberty of aflerting — and I
fearleffly refer your Lordmips to the documents themfelves,
to prove the correctnefs of my afTertion — that, fo far from
this plan being fanctioned by the previous reports, it is in
direct oppofition to all of them — in every part of it ; and
not leaft in the part to which I am about to invite the atten
tion of your Lordmips.

" My Lords, the whole control of the religious inftruc-
tion of the Proteftant children of Ireland will be placed, by
this plan, in the hands of three Commiflioners nominated by
the Crown. I need fcarcely tell your Lordfhips that I enter-

352 The Biflwp of Exeter s Speech

tain for the Proteftant portion of the Board the very higheft
refpecT: ; I have already fpoken, and fhall continue to fpeak,
of the noble duke at the head of the Board with the moft
fincere refpecl: ; but fure I am your Lordfhips will agree
with me, and I am alfo fure the noble duke himfelf will be
perfectly ready to admit, that there is no great probability
of his troubling himfelf much with minutely criticifmg the
religious publications fubmitted to the Board. The duty of
examining them muft, then, of neceflity devolve upon the
other two Commiflioners, namely, the Archbifhop of Dublin
and Dr. Sadleir. I know both thofe learned perfons, and
of both of them I think moft highly. Of the Archbifhop of
Dublin, I will fay, that I never knew a man of greater
powers, or of a more richly cultivated mind. I never knew
a man more ftrenuous in the purfuit of truth, more fearlefs
in following whitherfoever the purfuit may lead him. In
(hort if ever I knew one man more than another who could
be called a ftricl: lover of truth, that man is the Archbifhop
of Dublin; and, to fay of any man that he is a ftri& lover
of truth, amounts to faying that he is one of the beft of men.
But, having faid this, I truft it will not be imagined that I
fpeak invidioufly, when I fay, that this very ardent love of
truth in one, who happens to have erred in the purfuit of it,
only makes him the more unfafe as a guide, much more as
the abfolute arbiter of the opinions of others. In fhort, my
Lords, I muft not be afraid of faying, that the known
opinions of the Archbifliop of Dublin upon an important
theological queftion, are opinions which, in a great degree,
difqualify him for the fituation to which he has been called.
That he is difqualified for that fituation not merely becaufe
he muft be thoroughly ignorant of the ftate of Ireland j not
becaufe he is, therefore, in imminent danger of being duped
by the Jefuitifm to which I have already adverted ; but alfo
becaufe, as I have faid, of thofe opinions.

" The opinions of this moft reverend Prelate are no fecret
—they are known, I prefume, to moft of the noble lords

in the Houfe of Lords. 353

I have the honour to addrefs. His opinion denying the
facrednefs of the Sabbath has been put forth to the world, and
he is anfwerable for it to the world. Now, what I fay is
this, that any man holding fuch an opinion, and not only
holding it, but promulgating it to the world, is not qualified
to have a veto on the books that fhould be ufed in the edu
cation of Proteftant children. Suppofe a tra£t is put into
his hand, the theme of which is, * Remember that thou
keep holy the Sabbath-day,' — I put it to any man, is he
or is he not a perfon who ought to be intruded with the
power of deciding [as to the admiflibility of fuch a tradl: ?
My Lords, I perceive, from the demeanour of fome noble
lords near me, that they think this language invidious.
My Lords, I difclaim any fuch intention, I mean nothing
invidious. I, in common with the great body of the clergy
of the Church of England, and with all, I believe, of my
right reverend brethren near me, hold that this opinion is
erroneous. I impute error, but nothing more than error :
and I lament to think, in thefe days, that a man muft either
be fuppofed to be infmcere himfelf, or to afcribe infmcerity to
another, if he gives him credit for confcientioufly avowing
and maintaining an error.

" But, my Lords, the cafe ftops not here. Much worfe
confequences may flow from the principle on which this
commiflion is founded. The prefent Minifters would
not, I dare fay, advance a man to the Epifcopal Bench in
Ireland who holds Socinian or Arian opinions. They would
not knowingly do fo. But there have been inftances of
fuch appointments ; even in our own times there was an
Irim bifhop defamed as a Socinian. I will fuppofe fuch a
man appointe'd to the Archiepifcopal See of Dublin, and to
a feat at this board, and then I find a Socinian veiled with
full power to control the religious fentiments of the rifing
generation of Ireland.

" But, my Lords, the whole of this part of the meafure is
a flagrant violation of the fpirit, and, I believe, even of the

A A

354 The Bijhop of Exeter's Speech

letter of the law of the land ; it is, too, a grofs ufurpation
upon the rights of the clergy of Ireland.

" By the ftatute law, it is the duty of the Proteftant
clergy of that country to make provifion for the education
of the people. The earlieft Acl: to which I think it necef-
fary to refer your lordfhips is an Irifh Ac!: of Parliament
of the 28th of Henry VIII. This Ad, after ftating 'the
importance of a good inftru&ion in the mod blefled laws of
Almighty God ;' and after further ftating * his Majefty's
difpofition and zeal, that a certain direction and order be
had, that all of his (Irifh) fubje&s fliould the better know
God, and do that thing which might in time be, and re
dound to our wealth, quiet, and commodity,' proceeds, after
other matters, to require an oath to be adminiftered to every
clergyman at ordination, and another at inftitution, that he
will keep, or caufe to be kept, a fchool for to learn Englifh,
&c. And this is re-ena&ed by the 7th William III, c. 4,
(Irifh). Thefe provifions, as I prefume I need not inform
your lordfhips, impofe no obligation upon the beneficed
clergy to maintain thofe fchools at their own expenfe j they
merely convey to them a power, and impofe on them an
obligation, of feeing that thefe fchools be eftablifhed, and
that no higher rate of payment be charged than the cuf-
tomary rate. In truth this Acl: does little more than add a
pecuniary penalty to the facred obligation which, without
any fuch ftatute, would have been impofed upon the clergy
of attending to the inftru&ion of the young. It is their
duty upon much higher grounds than thofe which any A6t
of Parliament can impofe ; for at their ordination they re
ceive a power, and at inftitution they receive the aflignment
of a particular place in which to execute that power, of
preaching the Word of God ; and, by preaching, as I fcarcely
need tell your lordfhips, is not meant merely the delivery
of fermons, but the whole fpiritual care of their flocks. But
the letter of the Chief Secretary for Ireland not only inter
feres with the obligation involved in the minifterial office,

in the Houfe of Lords. 355

fo far as concerns this moft important particular of the cure
of fouls — the religious inftru&ion of the children of the
poor — but it alfo puts an end, or profefles to put an end, to the
obligations which pofitive ftatutes have created ; — for it, in
effecl:, takes out of the hands of the parochial clergy that
right and duty of fuperintendence with which feveral ftatutes
have inverted them. This, I prefume, will be confidered by
moft noble lords as the aflumption of fomething very like
a difpenfing power. Be this as it may, three Commiflioners
are nominated by the Crown, who are to poflefs the abfolute
power of dictating what fhall be the religious inftru£Hon
given to the children of Ireland ; thus taking from the paro
chial clergy in Ireland that which the laws of God and man
had intrufted to their fidelity and difcretion. Now, my
Lords, we are told that this plan is perfectly identical with
that which was over and over again recommended by dif
ferent Committees and Commiflions. But fo far is this
from being correct that the Commiflion of 1824 kft tms
matter wholly and expreflly in the hands of the clergy. The
firft report of that Commiflion, at great length, aflerts and
eftablifhes the right of the clergy, by ftatute, to the fuperin
tendence of the inftru&ion of the children of Ireland ; and
the Report of the Committee of the Houfe of Commons in
1828 left the fele&ion of books for the religious inftru<£Hon
of the Proteftant children to the bifhops of the Church in
general, who might be confidered as the fit reprefentatives
of the clergy. But this new plan abfolutely flies in the face
of all that went before ; and yet noble lords, and noble and
learned lords, defend this plan on the ground of its being
founded on the very fame principles.

" But I am come to the third part of this new fcheme of
national education ; and I afk, How does it provide for the
religious inftru&ion of the Roman Catholic children ?

" My Lords, I am not prepared to fay that it is the duty of
the State to infift on all perfons learning in the Bible ; but
this I fay, that it is the duty of the State not to aid in any

356 The Bijhop of Exeter s Speech

form of education which excludes the Bible ; this I fay, that
all perfons mould have free accefs to the Bible, whether they
will avail themfelves of it or not. We mould recollect that
the prefer vation of a free accefs to the Scriptures is a duty
impofed upon us by the law of God, and efpecially that every
Proteftant legiflature, as fuch, is bound to take care that the
people committed to its charge enjoy that privilege in its
fulleft extent ; is bound to fee that, neither directly nor in
directly, it makes itfelf a party to any meafure adverfe to
this prime and fundamental Proteftant principle.

" In making thefe ftatements, however, I am perfectly
willing to admit that, in the prefent peculiar ftate of Ireland,
it would be at once unwife and cruel not to give more than
the Proteftant verfion of the Scriptures. All that I contend
for is the duty of a Proteftant legiflature and a Proteftant
government to fee that a verfion of the Scriptures, of fome
kind or other, be acceffible to all ; and that it be actually
ufed in the inftru&ion of all for whofe education the State
mail undertake to provide. Yet this the Roman Catholic
hierarchy will not now permit. In truth, it cannot have
efcaped the attention of your lordfhips that the prefent de
mands of that hierarchy are of a much more lofty character
than thofe which they urged at a former period ; though, to
do them juftice, their declared principles were then the fame
as now. In proof of this I will refer to a petition of the
Roman Catholic bifhops of Ireland to the Houfe of Com
mons, prefented in 1824, and publifhed in the firft Report
of the Commifiioners of 1824, page i. The words are
thefe :-

" * That the religious inftru&ion of youth / r Catholic
fchools is always conveyed by means of catechetical inftruc-
tion, daily prayers, and the reading of religious books, wherein
the gofpel morality is explained and inculcated ; that Roman
Catholics have ever confidered the reading of the facred
Scriptures by children as an inadequate means of imparting
^to them religious inftru&ion, as an ufage whereby the Word

in the Houfe of Lords. 357

of God is made liable to irreverence, youth expofed to mif-
underftand its meaning, and thereby not unfrequently to
receive, in early life, impreffions which may afterwards
prove injurious to their own beft interefts, as well as tothofe
of the fociety which they are deftined to form.'

" Such were the fentiments of the RomanCatholic bifhops at
the period to which I refer, deliberately laid before the other
Houfe of Parliament. I (hall now requeft your lordmips*
attention to another document which I think not lefs intereft-
ing than important, for the purpofe of illuftrating and fuftain-
ingthe pofitions which it is my objecT: to enforce. I allude
to an encyclical letter from Pope Leo XII. againft the ufe of
the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue, dated the 3rd of May,
1824, and publifhed in Ireland with * Paftoral Inftru&ions
to all the Faithful ' by the Roman Catholic archbifhops and
bifhops of Ireland, and is to the following effect : —

" * We alfo, venerable brethren, in conformity with our
apoftolic duty, exhort you to turn away your flock, by all
means, from thefe poifonous paftures (the Scriptures in the
vulgar tongue) ; reprove, befeech, be inftant in feafon and
out of feafon, in all patience and doctrine, that the faithful
intruded to you (adhering ftri&ly to the rules of our Con
gregation of the Index) be perfuaded that if the facred Scrip
tures be everywhere indifcriminately publifhed, more evil
than advantage will arife thence, on account of the rafhnefs
of men.'

" To this paflage the Irifh prelates, in their Paftoral In-
ftru&ions, refer in the following terms : —

" c Our holy father recommends to the obfervance of the
faithful a rule of the Congregation of the Index, which pro
hibits the perufal of the facred Scriptures in the vulgar
tongue, without the fanclion of the competent authorities.
His holinefs wifely remarks that more evil than good is found
to refult from the indifcriminate perufal of them, &c. In
this fentiment of our head and chief we fully concur/

"My Lords, you have here before you the folemn judgment

358 The Bijhop of Exeter s Speech

of the head of the Roman Catholic Church. You have like-
wife before you the folemn judgment of the whole Irifh
Roman Catholic hierarchy. I will next ftate what an indi
vidual of that body — the moft influential among them, Dr.
Doyle — has faid of his own feparate fentiments — feparate
only in the fenfe that he fpeaks in his individual capacity, but
in no refpecl: different from the general fentiments of the
body. He fays, —

" ( The Scriptures alone have never faved any one ; they
are incapable of giving falvation ; it is not their object ; it is
not the end for which they were written.'

" Thefe are his fentiments, though S. Paul tells us that
the Scriptures * are able to make us wife unto falvation.'
Dr. Doyle goes on to fay, —

" ' They hold a dignified place amongft the means of the
institution which Chrift formed for the purpofe of faving His
ele<5t ; but if they never had been written this end would be
obtained, and all who were pre-ordained to eternal life would
have been gathered to the Church, and fed with the bread
of life.'

" Such are the notions of Dr. Doyle refpe&ing Scripture,
and not of Dr. Doyle only, but of all the Roman Catholic
prelates of Ireland. They will a& in conformity to thefe
notions, and, armed with the authority of this commiffion,
they will expel the Scriptures from the religious inftru6Hon
of all their fchools, even of thofe which are maintained at
the expenfe of this Proteftant State.

" But, my Lords does this accord with the recommenda
tion of the Commiflioners of Irifh education of 1824 -? So
far from it, that they laid it down as a fundamental, an in-
difpenfable principle, that the Teftament fhould be put in
the hands of all children, Roman Catholics as well as Pro-
teftants. This was a matter which they would not permit
to be brought even into queftion ; they infifted upon it as
eflential (their own word, my Lordsj, and they required the
Roman Catholic prelates to furnifh them with a verfion of

in the Houfe of Lords. 359

the New Teftament for the purpofe. They permitted, in
deed, that notes fhould be fubjoined, requiring only that thefe
notes fhould not contain matter of reafonable offence to Pro-
teftants. My Lords, I have pleafure in bearing teftimony to
the fairnefs and fidelity with which this has been accom-
plifhed. I have pleafure in faying that I have read thofe
notes, and have found in them nothing whatever which can
afford fair ground of offence to any reafonable Proteftant.

"My Lords, the Commiffioners of 1824 infifted,! repeat,
on this Teftament being ufed in the religious inftru&ion of
the Roman Catholics, and on the children reading in it, not
only the Epiftles and Gofpels of the Sundays, but the Epiftles
and Gofpels of the whole week, including a large portion of
the New Teftament.

" My Lords, the Committee of the Houfe of Commons
of 1828 followed in the fame line. They, too, required
that this New Teftament fhould be printed and fupplied to
the national fchools for the religious inftru&ion of the Roman
Catholic children : —

" c Refolved, that it is the opinion of the Committee that
copies of the New Teftament, &c. fhould be provided for
the ufe of the children, to be read in fchool, &c. the eftab-
lifhed verfion for the ufe of the Proteftant fcholars, and the
verfion publifhed with the approval of the Roman Catholic
bifhops for the children of that communion.'

" Such was the refolution of the Committee of 1828 ; but
the new plan abandons the Teftament altogether. It does
fo, even though it profefles to carry into effect the report
of that Committee — it does fo, even though fome fpecial
management (I wifh not to ufe the word in an invidious
fenfe, but fimply to ftate the fa6t, that fome management)
was neceflary to effect the purpofe. My Lords, on looking
to No. 6 of the regulations of page 5 of the report of the
Committee, and comparing it with No. 5 of the regulations
in Mr. Stanley's letter, your lordfhips will perceive what I
mean. In the latter, all mention of fupplying * books of

360 The Bijhop of Exeter s Speech

religious inftru&ion' (which included Teftaments) is ftudi-
oufly omitted, even where that letter is copying the very
part of the report which requires fuch a fupply. Why, my
Lords, is this ? Why is it that, in the plan of the prefent
Board of Education, which profefles to carry into execution
the recommendation of that Committee, there is no provi-
fion made for the fupply of Teftaments to any fchool in
Ireland ? Becaufe, my Lords, the power which di&ates to
Government, in all that concerns the interefts or the wifhes
of the Roman Catholic Church, has chofen to demand the
facrifice — has chofen to demand that the Bible mould be
altogether excluded from their fchools. To this power our
Proteftant government has confented to furrender that which
never before was permitted even to be afked.

" My Lords, I have now gone through the various parts of
this new fcheme of national education, and I think its merits
may be fairly fummed up in this brief abftra&. It has
divorced morality from the Word of God. It has con
trolled the Proteftant priefthood in the exercife of one of
their moft efTential rights, and in the difcharge of one of
their moft important duties — fubje&ing them to a tyranny
which the laws neither of God nor of man have authorized.
It has confpired with the Roman Catholic hierarchy to arreft
the progrefs of the book of life— to exclude that blefled book
for ever (as vain man fondly deems) from every cabin of
every peafant in Ireland — and to confign the unhappy pea-
fant himfelf to a deeper, deadlier ftate of darknefs and of
bondage.

" My Lords, I have done. I have faid what I had to fay,
and I thank your lordfhips for the patience with which you
have heard me. Be aflured that I will not often trefpafs on
that patience. My Lords, in the part which I have now
taken, I have only endeavourexl to difcharge fome portion of
the duty which I owe to the high office in which I am
placed.

" Why are men of our fpiritual function called to mingle

in the Houfe of Lords. 361

in the councils of you, the mighty ones of this world, and
to bear our part in legiflating for the land ? Why is this
ftricl: union of Church and State ? — an union which, for
many more centuries than I can number, has been the glory
and fecurity of England. Why, I afk, is this ? Is it to
make the Church political ? No, my Lords ; in the language
of the moft venerable man among you — one of whom, as he
is now abfent, I can more freely exprefs my gratitude and
admiration — I mean the noble and learned earl who for fo
many years fat on that woolfack — it is not to make the
Church political, but to make the State religious. There
fore, my Lords, it is that we fit here. We fit among you
mainly and chiefly (not, indeed, folely, but mainly and chiefly)
that we be at all times ready, when occafion mail demand,
to inftil into your counfels the holy leflbns of Gofpel truth
— to watch over the beft and higheft interefts of thofe for
whom you legiflare — to raife our warning voice againft every
attempt, from whatever quarter it may proceed, to fever
policy from religion, or to facrifice the fmalleft particle of
that pure faith for which your forefathers, my Lords, drove
a bigot from his throne, and our predeceflbrs were content
to be led by his beadles to a gaol ! My Lords, I ftand be
fore you a bifhop of the united Church of England and of
Ireland ; the united Church, I fay — for never may we for
get that it is united — never ! never ! never ! — leaft of all, in
this dark hour of fuffering to the Irifh branch, of common
trial, of common peril (it may be both), to both. I ftand
here, and implore your lordfhips to give your moft ferious
attention to the high religious interefts, aye, and I muft be
permitted to add, the high religious duties, which are in
volved in this night's queftion. I ftand here, and conjure
you to caft off, for one brief hour, all inferior thoughts, and
to remember only that you are Chriftian legiflators.

" My Lords, four-and-twenty hours have fcarcely pafled
fmce we humbled ourfelves in the houfe of God, deploring
the fins of a guilty people, and befeeching Him to avert the

362 The Eifhop of Exeter s Speech

fearful fcourges which thofe fins have merited. We all
then * humbly acknowledged that, through our neglect of
God's ordinances, through our mifufe of God's bounties,
offences have multiplied in the land.' My Lords, of all thofe
ordinances, the moft facred is the due and free ufe of His
holy Word j of all thofe bounties, the moft precious is the
gift of that holy Word. And will you then, my Lords, on
this, the firft night of your aflembling together after that
folemn fervice — will you join in dereliction of your firft duty
— in deferting the caufe of God's own Word ? My Lords,
I have no right to fpeak to you of my own feelings : if I
had, I would entreat, I would befeech you — I would not,
indeed, imitate the eloquent action of the moft eloquent of
living men — I would not bend my knee in prayer to you,
for I pray not to mortal man — but if reverence did not for
bid me to mingle the attitude and the words of prayer with
the excitement of this debate, I would humbly pray to Him
Whofe poor and worthlefs creatures we all are — aye, my
Lords, the higheft and the proudeft, no lefs than the lowlieft
and the meekeft — I would pray to Him that He would bow
the hearts of all here as of one man, c to put away the ac-
curfed thing from among you ' — to difclaim all part in this
moft unhallowed work, even though the name and the feal
of our gracious Sovereign be upon it.

" My Lords, that name and that feal, affixed to fuch a
commiffion — in execution of fuch purpofes — by fuch inftru-
ments — fill the mind with ftrange mufings ; awaken affe&ing
recollections ; invite, perhaps, to fome comparifons. But
I forbear; I will not be further ftirred by them than to
warn the counfellors of a gracious prince — all whofe thoughts
and wifties and intentions are, we know, for the good and
happinefs of his people — to warn them, ere it be too late —
while thrones are tottering, and crowns are falling around
us — while they themfelves are reminding us, moft properly
and moft wifely — I thank them for it — while they are re
minding us that even now God's judgments are in the earth

in the Houfe of Lords. 363

— to warn them, I fay, that He, by Whom kings reign, may
be provoked to fay again, what He once faid to a monarch
whom He had himfelf placed over His own chofen people,
c Becaufe thou haft rejected the Word of the Lord, He hath
alfo rejected thee from being king over Ifrael.' '

This fpeech — the firft confiderable effort of the
bilhop in the Houfe of Lords — placed him at once in
the front rank of Parliamentary debaters, and infpired
even his enemies with the higheft opinion of his ability
and eloquence.

It was upon the occafion of this debate that Lord
Radnor, ever ready to caft obloquy upon the Church
or the clergy, made that difgraceful attack upon the
character of the bifhop which has already been re
ferred to.

On the 2yth of this fame month (March), the
Houfe having refolved itfelf into a Committee on the
Pluralities Bill, Lord King took occafion to refer once
more to the parim of Woodbury* in the diocefe of
Exeter, from whence, as alleged, the vicars choral of
Exeter Cathedral drew an income of 600 /. or 700 /. per
annum, while they allowed the officiating clergyman
only 50 /. or 60 /. a-year. The Biftiop of Exeter then
exprefled his gratification that Lord King had referred
to this matter, as it gave him an opportunity of ftating
the real facts of the cafe. Inftead of receiving 600 /.
per annum, as alleged, the vicars choral received only
one third of that fum, and the income of the clergy-

* See page 300.

364 Explanations.

man inftead of being 5<D/. was ioo/. per annum. It
was true that he received only 5O/. or 60 /. from the
choral fund, but the parim made up his falary to ioo/.,
and the vicars choral had fince raifed it to ifo/. per
annum.

365

CHAPTER XXIII.

Anxiety as to the Fate of the Reform Bill in the Houfe of Lords.
Rumoured Intention of creating new Peers. Defection of
Lords Harrowby and U^harncliffe. The " Waver ers."
The Bill carried. The Royal JJJent. The Bijhop of Exeter
a Strenuous Opponent of it. His Intrepid ConducJ. Aban
donment of the Caufe by fome of the Bijhops. Defcription of
the Bijhop of Exeter1 s Speech. Anxiety to hear the Debate.
Excitement throughout the Country. The Bijhop's Speech
againft the Bill. Importance of Publication of Parlia
mentary Debates. Conduct of the Editors of Newfpapers.
The Bijhop1 s Speech attacked by the Times. Charged with
Change of Sentiment on the Roman Catholic ^ueftion. Lord
Durham ufes Violent Language towards the Bijhop. He is
called to Order. He repeats his Charge. The Bijhop's
Reply. The Duke of Buckingham declares that ExtracJs

from a Letter of his to the King had appeared in the Times,
as ftated by the Bijhop. Indignant Speech of Earl Grey.
Attack upon the Bijhop. Exultation of the Radical Portion
of the Prefs. No Real Explanation given of the Appearance
of the Letter. Injudicious Conduft of Minijiers. The Bijhop

Jigns the Duke of Wellington's Proteft againft the Reform
Bill. Great Unpopularity in his Diocefe. He returns to
Exeter. His Preaching. Sets out on a Confirmation Tour
through South Devon. Holds an Ordination at Exeter.
Leaves for London to attend SeJJion of Parliament.

[HE fuccefsful progrefs of the Reform Bill
through the Houfe of Commons has been
already noticed.* So far all had gone
fmoothly enough ; but its warmer! fup-
porters could not think of its probable fate in the

* See page 310.

366 Reform Bill carried in Houfe of Lords.

Houfe of Lords without concern. It was rumoured
that, if need fhould arife, a fufficient number of new
peers would be created to enfure its fuccefs. This
would have had the practical effect of altogether de
priving the Houfe of Lords of a voice in the council
of the nation. They might pafs the meafure indeed,
but it would be by the preconcerted vote of a packed
aflembly. If the defign, however, was ever ferioufly
entertained, it was not carried into effect, and on the
26th of March the bill was read for the firft time in
the Houfe of Lords. Some of the opponents of the
former bill now declared their adhefion to the new
meafure, their fentiments having been changed partly
by a fear of confequences, and partly perhaps from a
conviction that reform of fome fort was needed. Fore-
moft amongft thefe were Lords Harrowby and Wharn-
cliffe, the leaders of the former oppofition. The
fecond reading was moved on the 9th of April, and
the debate was continued on the loth, i ith, and ijth,
having been fufpended on the 1 2th, in confequence of
its being a levee day. Fiercely did the tide of argu- •
ment roll from one fide of the Houfe to the other until
feven o'clock in the morning of the I4th of April, when
upon a divifion the fecond reading was carried by a
narrow majority of nine.

And now the hopes of the reformers rofe high.
The victory was theirs, for the bill was read a third
time, and paffed, on the 4th of June, and three days
afterwards the Royal aflent was given by commiflion.
The Bifhopof Exeter continued a ftrenuous opponent

The Biflwp of Exeter oppofed to the Bill. 367

of the bill to the very laft. A conviction of its in
expediency was fo firmly implanted in his mind, that
neither the example of "the Waverers " (as his brother
peers who having voted againft the firft bill, voted in
favour of the fecond, were ftyled) nor the menace of
popular indignation could move him. Seldom did he
exhibit his characteriftic tenacity of purpofe more
ftrikingly than upon this trying occafion. Painful as
it was to incur public odium, efpecially in his own
diocefe ; much as he might fhrink from being held up
to fcorn as the type of a clafs, who, fo long as they
could fill their own pockets, thought it a light matter
to trample under foot the liberty of the people, he felt
that his duty was imperative, and he did it.

Eafy enough would it have been to have earned a
tranfient popularity by abandoning the caufe he had
efpoufed, as the Bifhops of Bath and Wells, Lichfield,
Lincoln, and Llandaff had done, and who could tell
how high a reward might have awaited one fo gifted,
if he had only thrown the weight of his talents into
the minifterial fcale ? His fpeech upon this occafion
was fingularly character} ftic, and is remarkable for
having given rife to an angry difcuffion, which will be
noticed further on. The Morning Chronicle of April
1 2th (a journal little friendly to the bifhop) defcribes
it as the beftjfeech on the oppofi t ion fide ; and fo it un
doubtedly was.

While difdaining to enter upon the details of a mea-
fure which he believed to be fubverfive of the confti-
tution, he mowed, by comparing the Englifti Reform

368 Anxiety to hear the Debate.

Bill with the Irifh, then under confideration in the Com
mons, that one effect of the meafure would be to diflblve
the few and infufficient fecurities which had been left
to the Eftablifhed Church by the Roman Catholic
Relief Bill. The aggreflions of later years have mown
how thoroughly the bifhop underftood the temper of
the Roman Catholic hierarchy. It was to this part of
his fubject that he addrefTed himfelf with flngular force
and energy, — elements which were fadly wanting in
moft of the other fpeeches. The wearifomenefs of
details which had been fo often difcufled before, made
the debate for the moft part heavy and uninterefting.
But tedious as was the progrefs of the bill, the ex
citement infide and outfide the Houfe knew no bounds.
The Spectator fays :—

" A friend of ours defcribes the appearance of the Houfe
of Lords at five o'clock in the morning, when the horizontal
rays of the fun began to dafh through the windows, and
mingle with * the petty mifty light ' of the decaying candles,
as hardly lefs interefting than the gay fcenes of the Abbey on
the morning of the Coronation Day. The body of the Houfe
was crowded with peers, eagerly bent forward to catch the
exordium of the premier, whofe tall and venerable figure
appeared on the floor. The eyes of the Chancellor flamed
like two diamonds c in their native dew ' under his over- -
whelming wig. Lord Lyndhurft's lips were formed in their
ufual crafty fmile. * The Duke ' looked as wooden as ever;
and nothing indicated the long, and heavy, and harafling duty
in which the lifteners, more than the fpeakers, had for fo
many hours been engaged. The PeerefTes had kept their
feats to the laft. They too mowed no figns of fatigue ; and
one of them, confpicuous above the reft by the air of intereft
that ftill marked her countenance, feemed to mow that me

"Excitement throughout the Country. 369

was not unufed to late hours, and had perhaps perfonal or
family advantages in contemplation. It was not until the
moment when the divifion was called that the fair lady, and
her gay bevy, reluctantly withdrew, refting however in the
auguft precindls until the fate of the queftion was known."

Nor was this all. An impatient crowd thronged
the ftreets. Coffee-houfes and taverns were full to
choking. Popular orators were hoarfe with their de
nunciations of a pampered ariftocracy and a dominant
Church. Eager lifteners were never tired, and every
hour {welled the crowd. Meflengers were in attend
ance to carry the firft news to the foreign embaflies,
and couriers, already in the faddle, were ordered to
fpare neither whip nor fpur till the tidings had been
borne to the moft diftant corners of the land. The
queftion ever in men's mouths was, cc What will the
lords do ?" It was whifpered in the avenues of the
palace, it was heard above the clamour of the exchange,
it was the firft thing talked of when men left the
Houfe of God. Woe to that auguft body, fo it was
faid, if they fhould dare to crofs the people's will !

It was on April the nth, the third night of the
debate, when the tide of popular excitement was run
ning at the higheft, and the ftorm of indignation againft
the Church was blowing its wildeft, that the Bifhop of
Exeter rofe, immediately after the Bifhop of London,
and fpoke as follows :* —

* Any one who reads this fpeech will not require an
apology for its being inferted entire. As it was one of the
earlieft of the bifhop's efforts in Parliament, fo will it ever
rank among the beft.

B B

370 The Bijhop of Exeter s Speech

" My Lords, it was my wifh not to obtrude myfelf on the
attention of your lordfhips during the prefent debate ; and I
had refolved to aft on that wifh, unlefs fome of my right rev.
brethren mould addrefs the Houfe in favour of the bill. My
Lords, my two right rev. friends near me have thought it
neceflary fo to addrefs your lordfhips. I truft, therefore,
that I mall be pardoned if, following them with equal open-
nefs and candour, but with very unequal ability, I mall en
deavour to declare the reafons which compel me to vote in
oppofition to them. My Lords, I feel that, of what thefe right
rev. Prelates have faid, very little indeed calls for any obfer-
vations from me. That they are fincere ; that they are dif-
interefted ; that they are perfuaded that the view they have
taken of this fubjecT:, and the conclufions to which they have
arrived, are juft, I am perfectly fatisfied. Whatever obfer-
vations may have been anywhere made on them, I profefs,
my Lords, that I am at a lofs to difcover anyreafonable ground
of fufpicion againft the purity of the motives which have
actuated them on this occafion. The firft point, my Lords,
to which I think it neceflary to apply myfelf is, the obferva-
tion which was made by the right rev. Prelate who fpoke
laft, with refpecl: to the notice given by the noble duke oppo-
fite laft night. The noble duke (Buckingham), my Lords,
gave notice that he would bring in a bill for a reform of
Parliament, in cafe of the rejection of that which is now
before the Houfe ; and it is moft remarkable that this meafure
of reform promifed by the noble duke coincides, in a very
extraordinary manner, with the opinions and feelings exprefled
by the right rev. Prelate. Now, my Lords, I mould have
thought that the natural courfe for him to have taken would
have been to fay, * I rejoice to find that, after all the delay
which has taken place — after all the difappointment to which
I have been fubje&ed, in not having before had a meafure
fubmitted to my confideration which accorded with my views,
I mail now have what I have fo long wanted — a rival expe
dient will be propofed, which falls in fo peculiarly with my

againft'the Reform Bill. 37 I

own feelings and my own notions, that I cannot hefitate to
wait for it.' " [The Bifhop of London : " No, no !"] « The
right rev. Prelate fays, * No, no.' I do not know where I
was wrong in the ftatement I have made of the opinions
which he has exprefled ; but if I have mifreprefented him, I
am fure he will believe that I have not done fo intentionally.
At any rate, it muft be admitted that the reafon given by my
right rev. friend coincides very remarkably with what I have
ftated of his opinions ; for he finds no fault with the extent
or purport of the noble duke's notice ; he only fays it has
come too late for one who had found it neceflary to make
up his mind fome time before. No doubt my right rev.
friend had fo made up his mind, but why it was neceflary for
him to do fo I cannot conceive ; and yet I am quite fure
that the neceflity which is felt by fuch a mind as his is fome-
thing very ftrong. Be this as it may, I fhould have thought
it time enough for him to have made up his mind when the
bill was before the Houfe, and when the queftion to be de
cided really prefled for decifion ; but he has anticipated that
period — for very good reafons, I am quite fure, though I am
at a lofs to perceive them. My Lords, I fhould not have
been furprifed if any of the noble lords on this (the minifte-
rial) fide of the Houfe had wifhed to get rid of this notice of
the noble duke, which muft be felt by them as very incon
venient. But I fhould have thought that, to any one enter
taining the opinions exprefled by my right rev. friend, and
who had read the bill which I hold in my hand, the noble
duke's notice would have been the moft acceptable thing
poflible, becaufe it affords the very heft means of getting out
of all the difficulty which fuch a perfon muft feel. It en-
fures the object he has in view, the real extent of reform
which he thinks neceflary, and offers to deliver him from
the dangers which he fees in this bill. But, my Lords, it is
time for me to apply myfelf to the real queftion before the
Houfe. And what is this queftion ? It is whether we will
confent to the fecond reading of the bill ; in other words,

372 The Bijhop of Exeter s Speech

whether we will approve and adopt its principle. Now, is
the principle of the bill fuch as is fit to be" adopted by this
Houfe ? efpecially is it fuch as can merit the approbation of
all the noble Lords and right reverend Prelates who have ex-
prefled their opinions on the limits within which a fafe
meafure of reform muft be bounded ? Very far otherwife :
it is very true that we have not yet very clearly afcertained
what the real principle of the bill is, and to this point I will
now beg leave to addrefs my attention. We have been told
by the noble earl who moved the fecond reading of the bill,
that the principle of it is declared in the preamble. That
preamble ftates the expediency of taking c effectual meafures
for correcting divers abufes that have long prevailed in the
choice of members to ferve in the Commons' Houfe of Par
liament, to deprive many inconfiderable places of the right
of returning members, to grant fuch privileges to large, po
pulous, and wealthy towns, to increafe the number of knights
of the mire, to extend the elective franchife to many of His
Majefty's fubje&s who have not heretofore enjoyed the fame,
and to diminim the expenfe of elections.' Now, I certainly
think it would be impoffible for any perfon not previoufly
aware of the fa£t to conceive from this preamble that the bill
itfelf would go not only to the abfolute extinction of many
rights of reprefentation, not only to the alteration of many
others, but to effecl: a complete and entire change in the
whole reprefentative fyftem, in the rights of election of every
county, city, and borough in England. A change fuch as
this — a change fo enormous as was never before contem
plated — is not to be expected from the preamble of the bill,
and if fo, then I fay that that preamble does not exprefs the
principle of the bill. The real principle of the bill feems to
me to be a complete change in our reprefentative fyftem,
except with refpecl to the Univerfities. Such a change has,
I repeat, never before been contemplated ; in my opinion
fuch a change amounts to fomething very like revolution,
and therefore the principle of the bill feems to me to be

again/I the Reform Bill. 373

revolutionary. I am well aware that the account which I
before ftated has been given of the principle of the bill, not
only by the noble earl who introduced it, but alfo by a noble
earl oppofite, who fpoke with fuch diftinguimed ability and
eloquence laft night (the Earl of Harrowby). That noble earl
has likewife given you another principle of the bill ; he has
told your lordmips that ' if you agree to the fecond reading
of this bill* — in other words, if you acknowledge the princi
ple of it — c you will admit that fome confiderable reform is
required in the Commons' Houfe of Parliament.' But, my
Lords, though we have this very high authority for the ftate-
ment that fuch is the principle of the meafure, I cannot for
get that we have had other principles attributed to it by the
noble earl himfelf. I am far from wiihing to taunt that noble
earl with inconfiftency in his views and conduct, in refpecl:
to this queftion, at different times ; for I do not think it
matter of blame that man fhould be inconfiftent with himfelf
with refpecl: to fo vaft a fubje&. A queftion of this kind
involves fo many confiderations, it muft appear at different
times in fo many different lights to the fame man, that a
change in his opinions is not to be wondered at. I fully
believe that nothing but the conviction of the wifdom and
neceflity of aflenting now to this very fame meafure, which
the noble earl fix months fince thought it wife and neceflary
to oppofe, could have induced the noble earl to give it his
fupport. But while I fully admit that voting differently at
different times, with regard to queftions of this nature, does
not neceffarily imply blameable inconfiftency, I am fure that
the noble earl will, on his part, admit that (though a different
line of action may be now neceflary in refpeft to this bill,
though he may now feel it his duty to fupport the fecond
reading which he then oppofed), yet what he exprefled of
the principle of the bill on the 4th of October laft, in oppofmg
it, cannot be lefs applicable to it this night, when he thinks
it proper to give it his fupport. In fhort, my Lords, truth
and reafon will ftand ftill even though the noble earl may

374 The Bijhop of Exeter s Speech

have felt it neceflary to turn round. Now, in opening this
morning the fpeech delivered by the noble earl laft October,
in oppofition to this meafure, the firft fentence that my eye
fell upon was the following : — ' The principle and object of
this bill are to make the Conftitution more democratic.
Look to the confequences of doing fo.' Again, in another
place : — * I am obliged to oppofe this bill, as I confider it a
change which muft inevitably lead to all other changes.' And,
in a third inftance, he fays, — ' I think that much of the power
of a government may reft in the confidence of the people ;
and if that confidence be fhaken,be the government in reality
good or bad, it is the intereft and the duty of the government
to take fuch reafonable meafures as fuggeft themfelves to
recover that confidence, and to aflure its continuance. That,
however, is not to be done by changing at once the whole
conftitution of the Houfe of Commons.' Here, my Lords,
is the defcription given by the noble earl of the principle of
the bill in October laft : it is 4 to make the Conftitution
more democratic ;' it is to effecT: * a change which muft
necefTarily lead to all other changes ;' it is * to change at
once the whole conftitution of the Houfe of Commons/
And if this was its principle then, it is not lefs its principle
now. I aflent moft completely to this view of the princi
ple, and therefore I fhall vote againft the fecond reading of
the bill. My Lords, I have already faid that I regard this
meafure as revolutionary. I know that the noble earl at the
head of the Government has repelled this charge againft the
meafure with indignation. I am glad that it was thought a
charge, and that it was fo anfwered ; for I ftiould think it
very frightful if the noble earl thought lightly of producing
a revolution : but the noble earl took a diftin&ion which he
thought juftified himfelf. He faid that 'that was not a revo
lution which was not either a change of dynafty or fome
other change that was wrought, not by the regular powers
of the Conftitution, but by the introduction of fome force
unknown to the Conftitution.' From the filence of the

agalnft the Reform Bill. 375

noble earl I truft I have quoted his words corre6Uy. But if
fuch are the noble earl's notions of revolution, they are very
different from mine.

" According to thofe notions it follows that no revolu
tion occurred in France before the year 1792, and not
until Louis XVI. fled from Paris ; for up to that period,
vaft as were the changes that took place, all or almoft all
were brought about under the forms of law, and by the re
gular powers of the Conftitution. ('No, no!') I truft
that noble lords will have the goodnefs to correct me here
after if I am wrong. Meanwhile I perfift in my affertion,
and I believe that it will hardly be difputed that every por
tion of the French Revolution up to June, 1792 — every
thing that was done before that period in the way of de-
ftroying the ancient inftitutions of the country — was done
under the forms of the Conftitution, and by the regularly
conftituted powers of the Government of that country.
Now, let us fuppofe for a moment that in this country a
vaft change was introduced by both Houfes of Parliament,
and fan&ioned by the King — a change which went to de-
ftroy the prefent exifting fyftem altogether. Let us fuppofe,
for inftance, that the two Houfes of Parliament were bafe
enough to pafs a bill to which the Sovereign gave his aflent,
making all the proclamations of the King equivalent to A6ts
of Parliament. Would it be faid, if fuch a thing as this
mould be done, that it would not amount to a revolution ?
And yet it would be a change accomplimed under the re
gular forms of the Conftitution, and fan&ioned by the con
ftituted authorities of the State. We might fuppofe alfo a
contrary cafe. Let us fuppofe that a Sovereign anxious for
popularity, and thinking to gratify the wifhes of his fubje&s,
(hould defcend from his throne, and with the confent of
Parliament, fo change all the forms of the Government as
to eftablim a republic, or a monarchy which would be one
only in name and form, with all the eflentials of a real re
public — this would be a change brought about by the recog-

376 The Bijhop of Exeter's Speech

nized conftitutional authorities of the land ; and yet would
any one fay that fuch a change would not amount to a
complete revolution. But this, it maybe faid, is putting ex
treme cafes. Well then, I would put another which a
twelvemonth ago we fhould all have thought an extreme
one too — but which after what we have recently heard
within thefe twenty-four hours, from a noble baron, may, I
fear, be fo regarded no longer. Let us fuppofe, my Lords,
that fome meafure were devifed the object of which fhould
be to drown the voice of your lordfhips, and to extinguifh
for ever the independence of this Houfe— let us fuppofe
this to be done in all due form by the exercife of powers
fully recognized by law — and thus, my Lords, a third cafe
would occur, of which I apprehend moft of your lordfhips
would agree in opinion with me that it amounts to a re
volution. (Interruption.) I muft fay that it is extremely
inconvenient to receive leflbns in this way while I am
addreffing your lordfhips. I am well aware that fevere
leflbns will be read to me by-and-bye — and then I fhall
bear them as I may. Meanwhile I entreat that I may not
be interrupted. After all, my Lords, however difagreeable
maybe the mention of the word revolution to the ears polite
of the noble lords on the bench near me, I muft remind
them that fome of the chief fupporters of the bill glory in
it, becaufe it is a revolutionary meafure, and advocate it as
fuch. We all know that the public prefs has given
great fupport to this bill, and we are equally aware that by
the public prefs it is hailed as a revolution. In one of the
public journals — in a journal conducted with great ability,
remarkable for its great information, and diftinguifhed for
the efficient fupport which it has given to this meafure — in
that journal I not long ago read the following words, as
characterizing the conftitution of this land, c That horrid
old mockery of a free government which we have hitherto
been enduring.' This is the defcription of the exifting
Conftitution given in that public journal which has rendered

againft the Reform Bill. 377

the moft powerful fupport to this meafure, and which is be
lieved by many to breathe the infpirations, if not of the
Treafury itfelf, at leaft of fome high office or offices of the
Government. I do not fay that this belief is well founded
—I do not fay that I believe it — I only fay that fuch a
charge has been made, and that it is believed by many to be
true. (* It is not true.') I have only faid what is believed
by many — not that I believe it. This, I repeat, is the de-
fcription of a Conftitution — of which Englifhmen have been
wont to be proud — given by one of the ableft fupporters
of the prefent bill. I find no fault with it, on the contrary
I honour the franknefs of the avowal. To think and fpeak
thus is exactly what might be expected from an honeft and
intelligent advocate of the plan. My Lords, I will not in-
fli& on your lordfhips any eulogy — or rather, I fear, I
mould fay any elegy — of mine on our departing Conftitution,
but I will indulge myfelf with fpeaking of it in the lofty
language in which Milton defcribes a complete and generous
education. My Lords, for more ages than I mall ftop to
number, the Britim Conftitution has 'fitted the people of this
land to perform juftly, fkilfully and magnanimoufly all the
duties both private and public of peace and war.' This in
my heart I believe to be true of our prefent Conftitution.
Such in my heart I believe the Britim Conftitution to be ;
and believing it to be fo, no earthly confideration mall induce
me, by any vote of mine, to contribute to its deftru&ion. I
do not mean to go into the details of this bill ; I (hall
rather look to its general character — and, looking at it thus,
I am fo forcibly ftruck by one of the things faid of it by the
noble earl oppofite, that I muft take the liberty of en
larging a little upon it. I allude, my Lords, to that part
of the noble earl's former fpeech in which he fpoke of the
democratic tendency of this meafure. My Lords, I am
not difpofed to be making comparifons between the different
elements in the exifting Conftitution ; but I have no hefi-
tation in faying that I confider the democratic element the

378 The Bijhop of Exeter s Speech

moft glorious and the moft valuable of all. I confider it
to be the perennial fource of that fpirit of liberty which is
the proudeft diftin&ion of our national chara&er — the boaft
and glory of our country ; but while I feel it to be fo valu
able, I at the fame time feel that it is a principle which pe
culiarly requires to be reftrained. Like that element in the
phyfical world which it moft refembles — the element of fire —
it is, while properly tempered and controlled, the moft genial,
the moft falutary, the moft invigorating, the moft productive
of all good ; but like that element, alfo,when left to its own
unchecked and uncorrected workings, it becomes the moft
deftru£Uve and the moft devaftating. In the conftitution,
as it at prefent exifts, I find that the democratic element
has fuch checks and corrections as reduce it to a due tem
perament, and render it a fafe and ineftimable ingredient of
the whole. Thefe checks and corrections are found in
parts of the Conftitution which I fairly own at firft fight
appear to be the leaft worthy of approbation, and the moft
expofed to obje&ion. I mean the nomination and clofe
boroughs. They have been called by a noble earl this
night — and I do not wifh to quarrel with the expreffion —
4 the rotten parts of the conftitution. * A great man de-
ceafed did not regard them in that light ; he diftinguifhed
them by a phrafe certainly not of honour, but one which
recognizes their importance and necefiity— he called them
the fhameful parts of the Conftitution.

" Such parts of the Conftitution are not the leaft necef-
fary to the foundnefs of the whole ; and if thofe boroughs
perform the diftin&ive functions which Mr. Burke fays they
do perform, and for which he valued them ; then I contend
that they ought not to be got rid of without fome equivalent
check of a more feemly character. If that can be done, I
mail rejoice in their abolition, but, feeing no fuch correctives
in the prefent bill, I feel myfelf bound to adhere to the old
fyftem, or at leaft not to go fo far in innovation as is pro-
pofed in the meafure before the Houfe. In connection with
this part of the fubje<£t, there is one point to which I beg

again/I the Reform Bill. 379

leave to recall your lordfhips' attention. We have heard
much of ufurpations on the rights of the people ; ufurpations
that have been committed either by members of this Houfe,
or by other wealthy proprietors. It is faid that fome of
your lordfhips have, in facl:, ufurped a power over the
reprefentation which particularly belonged to the people.
That this has, in fome inftances, occurred, I readily admit :
that it has occurred fo often as is charged, I muft beg leave
refpe&fully to deny. There is no period, I will venture to
fay, in the ancient hiftory of the Parliament of this country
in which it has not been the practice of the Government to
create boroughs which fhould abfolutely be in the nomina
tion of great proprietors. I believe I may fay, with truth,
that all thofe boroughs, the franchife of which is burgage-
tenure, are of this defcription. Now when thefe ufurpations
on the rights of the people are charged upon members of
the Houfe and upon the great proprietors, I beg to be per
mitted to afk, whether there has been no ufurpation on the
part of the people on the rights of the Parliament ? There
has been one gigantic ufurpation, in comparifon with which
all others fink into infignificance, — I mean the publicity
which is given to the proceedings of Parliament by the
printing of the debates in both Houfes. This ufurpation
upon the privileges of both Houfes of Parliament is far
greater, and far more important in its operation, than all
thofe ten-times-told which have been charged againft any of
your lordfhips, or any other great proprietors, as regards
any interference in the election of reprefentatives of the
Commons in Parliament. Nothing, I apprehend, can be
more certain than that, by the letter and fpirit of the Con-
ftitution of this country, the proceedings in the two Houfes
of Parliament are to be free from all influence from without,
and, therefore, it is that we are prefumed to be now dif-
cufiing this queftion with clofed doors. Do I lament that
the practice has been changed ? Far from it : I think that
the publicity given to our proceedings is the moft wholefome

380 The Bijhop of Exeter s Speech

meafure that could have been adopted. I think it the beft
and moft complete Reform of Parliament ever devifed ;
becaufe, I think that no greater fecurity can be given for
the purity of conduct of both Houfes than that all we do,
and all we fay, mould be known to the whole world. Thus
it has happened, that while the people have not fo large a
direct influence on the proceedings of Parliament, as a lefs
reftrained fyftem of reprefentation might afford them, ftill
everything is done to give them a real and efficient influence.
But if in order to correct the excefs of the power of the
members of this Houfe, or of other great proprietors, over
the reprefentation — if, in order to correcl: this excefs, a new
meafure were introduced, which would abolifh the balance
hitherto maintained — which would deftroy altogether the
influence of peers and great proprietors over the Conftitution
of the other Houfe, making all elections popular — but which,
at the fame time, would allow the publication of the pro
ceedings of the Parliament to be continued — if, I fay, to
correct the excefs complained of, fuch a courfe were adopted,
then would the democratic element of the Conftitution ob
tain fo vaft and overwhelming preponderance, that every
thing elfe muft give way to it -, and it would be impoflible
to carry on any regular fyftem of government. In fhort,
my Lords, thinking, as I do, that it is neceflary, as the beft
protection of the purity of our own proceedings, and for the
fatisfa£tion of the people, that accefs fhould be had, not only
to the votes, but to the debates of Parliament, I could never
confent to any meafure which could exclude the public from
thefe walls. But then, I muft infift on the neceffity of
bearing this important confideration in mind — when we are
meditating Reform, when we are difcuffing what fhall be
the new Conftitution of the country ; and we fhould take
care, while we permit the people irregularly to avail them-
felves of an advantage of the moft important kind, not fo to
increafe their regular power, as muft pofitively overwhelm
the monarchical and ariftocratical elements of the Conftitu-

againft the Reform Bill. 381

tion. My Lords, there is one part of the fubje£t to which
I beg leave to thank the noble baron who fpoke with fuch
extraordinary ability and eloquence two nights ago (Lord
Ellenborough), and alfo the noble earl at the table (the Earl
of Falmouth), for having directed our attention — I mean the
connection of this bill with that for the reform of the re-
prefentation of Ireland. As the noble earl well and truly
faid, the prefent meafure, and the two bills now before the
other Houfe, muft be confidered as parts and parcels of the
fame meafure. They are integral parts of one whole, and
I am quite fure that none of your lordfhips would afk me
to confider them feparately, or would fuppofe that I am
guilty of any irregularity in alluding to the Irifh meafure of
Reform, although that meafure is not yet before us, and in
fpeaking of it and of the Englifh bill, as one and the fame
conjoint meafure. I fay this the more confidently, becaufe
I have the example and the authority of the noble earl at
the head of the Government for fo doing ; for the noble
earl, in fubmitting this meafure to the Houfe, fpoke of the
Irifh bill, and told us what was the number of additional
reprefentatives which it was propofed to give to Ireland.
Now, of courfe, the noble earl could only have done this
from recognizing its connection with the prefent meafure.
Sanctioned then by this authority, and following the courfe
of the noble earl, I mall not fcruple to make one or two
remarks upon the bill for Ireland, as taken in connection
with that now before the Houfe. In the firft place, then,
if the Irifh bill mould be carried, what will become of the
reprefentation of the Irifh boroughs ? It will be taken from
the Proteftant influence and conferred upon the Roman
Catholic population. Can your lordfhips conceive a greater
change — a more important change — a more fearful change ?
It appears to me to be the more formidable, becaufe I can
not difguife from myfelf that it is only one part of that
fyftem, which, unhappily of late, has been too much prac-
tifed, of truckling to the Roman Catholics of Ireland I

382 The Bijhop of Exeter's Speech

fee that, on every occafion, there is a readinefs to yield the
moft high and facred confiderations conne&ed with the
religion of that country to temporal — nay, to temporary ex
pediency. Expediency ! My Lords : it is not expediency.
The thing is as miferable in policy as it is indefenfible in
principle. It is a mere huckftering of pure religion for the
brief, the hollow, the worthlefs fupport of men whom no
conceffions can win — who laugh at your bribes, and jeer at
your elaborate and unwearied efforts to cocker, and foothe,
and pamper them, — of men who no longer deign even to
wear the mafk of a decent hypocrify, who proclaim their
hopes — rather I fhould fay their triumphs — of men who
even now boaft — and chuckle while they boaft — that the
oath they have taken, not to ufe the power which a too-
confiding legiflature gave them * to weaken or difturb the
Proteftant government, or Proteftant religion of the country '
— admits of an explanation, which makes it a key — a pick
lock — with which they may open to themfelves, at once,
both the, citadel and the temple of our Sion. My Lords, I
fpeak not of vifionary dangers, or matters of diftant and
doubtful fpeculation. Already the days of the Irifh branch
of the Proteftant Church are numbered. The very month
of its deftru&ion has been openly, oftentatioufly, authorita
tively proclaimed. It has been declared that a general
election will take place in November next, and at that
general election the giant-fpirit of democracy will rife in all
its might, and crufti the Proteftant Church of Ireland to the
duft. This high purpofe has been proclaimed — not by fome
mad fanatic at the Rotunda in Dublin — not by fome artful
demagogue, or unprincipled agitator, feeking to inflame the
paflions of the mob, for the advancement of the fordid views
of his own miferable ambition, or more miferable avarice.
No ! it has been proclaimed by a Britim fenator, in a place
fecond in dignity only to the aflembly which I have now the
honour of addrefling, by a man of genius and of eloquence,
by a man who was not long ago fele&ed by the Lord-Lieu-

againft the Reform Bill. 383

tenant of Ireland — aye, and not unworthy on many accounts
to be fo fele&ed — to reprefent the principles of that noble
lord in Parliament. This gentleman, my Lords, whofe
fortunes and whofe principles alike place him above the
temptations of fordid lucre, and whofe high faculties — for he
has very high faculties — had found a full and adequate object
of their ambition in the peaceful honours of the fenate and
of the bar — this gentleman, after having laid down all hof-
tility to our Church — after having folemnly, and I doubt
not fmcerely, pledged himfelf to promote with all his powers
the common peace and common fecurity of all his country
men — has been forced and goaded by the meafure on which
we are this night to decide, to abandon that peaceful courfe
— to refume the poft and attitude of combat, to arm himfelf
in the caufe of his Church — his now, as it is fondly deemed,
triumphant Church. And while his better feelings recoil at
the work before him, while he vainly ftruggles againft the
chain which binds him, he is compelled again to take the
impulfe of all his public conduct from the mandate of his
fpiritual tafkmafter. In relation to this part of the queftion
— I mean the Irifh meafure of Reform — there is a matter
which I beg leave very earneftly to lay before your lord-
fhips — I mean the origin of the fyftem of reprefentation in
Ireland. I am perfuaded that it is not unknown to any of
your lordfhips that the reprefentative fyftem in Ireland
owes its origin to King James I. He eftablifhed that fyftem,
not as an equal fyftem, but avowedly as unequal. The
circumftances of Ireland — its condition — the relation in which
it ftood towards this country — forbade the introduction of an
impartial fyftem of reprefentation fimilar to our own. The
fyftem eftablifhed by King James I. was formed for a fmall
band of Englifhmen fettled in the midft of a hoftile popula
tion — a population oppofed to them in all that related to
civil rights, as well as to religious feelings. Under fuch
circumftances, King James I. felt that it was impofiible that
anything like a regular government could be kept up in that

384 The Eljhop of Exeter's Speech

country*, unlefs either the Roman Catholic natives were
treated as flaves, or the Proteftant fettler had a predominant
power in Parliament. For this reafon he openly avowed in
the proclamation which he fet forth at the time, and by
which he created a large number of boroughs in Ireland,
and divided fome of the provinces into new counties, that
his object in doing fo was to eftablifti a fyftem by which the
Proteftant intereft and the Proteftant Church of Ireland
fliould be fecured. Such, my Lords, was the policy of
James — fuch the foundation of the reprefentative fyftem of
Ireland. Within our recollection two epochs have occurred,
at which the reprefentation of that country has undergone
confiderable change. I mean the Legiflative Union of Ire
land with this country, and the recent fettlement of the
queftion with refpecl to the difabilities of the Roman
Catholics. On both thofe occafions it was decided that
the Proteftant intereft in the reprefentation of boroughs
fhould be retained. In the words of the Treaty of Union,
the maintenance of the Proteftant Church was confidered
as an eflential and fundamental principle in the government
of the country. For that reafon, it was ftipulated that cer
tain boroughs fhould be retained, and the corporations of
thofe boroughs were continued in the ftate in which they
were, under their ancient charters, for the very purpofe of
fecuring the Proteftant intereft. In the meafure adopted
three years ago — the meafure for the emancipation of the
Roman Catholics — that part of the Proteftant fecurity was
left untouched. It was ftated by the noble duke, in bring
ing that meafure forward, as a thing abfolutely eflential to
the good faith of this country — to the good faith of a Pro
teftant government dealing with Proteftant interefts— that
in making the change which he propofed, the Proteftant
boroughs of Ireland fhould be continued in their exifting
ftate. Is there, then, one of your lordfhips who, if told
at that time, that within three years it would be propofed to
do away with this fecurity which was then fo feduloufly and

againft the Reform Bill. 385

carefully preferred — is there, I afk, one of your lordfhips
who would not have fcouted the idea ? And yet, it is fo
propofed in the meafure now before us — a meafure, the
principle of which has received the affent of many noble
lords, who, I believe, are as firmly attached to the Pro-
teftant interefts as myfelf — which has received the aflent,
too, of fome of my right rev. brethren. Now, I confefs,
that this has fomewhat aftonifhed me, becaufe it is impof-
fible, I think, for any man not to be-aware of the con
nection between the Englifli and Irifli Reform bills, and,
confequently, of the refults which muft follow the adop
tion of the firft. I do not wifh to ftate this too ftrongly,
but, I fhould be wanting to the duty which I owe to the
Church, in which I bear fo high an office, if I did not
further ftate that there is fomething in this queftion of a
very peculiar intereft as refpe£h the higheft individual in
the realm. To the fecurity of the Proteftant interefts —
to the fecurity of the Proteftant Church — it is not only
our duty, as members of the Britim Parliament, to pay
particular attention, but it is alfo the particular duty of
the Sovereign himfelf. In difcufling this fubje<St we muft
not forget that, by the oath which fealed the compact
between the Sovereign and the people, and which we had
all the happinefs of feeing his prefent gracious Majefty
take with fuch interefting and impofmg ceremonies, a few
months ago — you muft not forget, I fay, that, by that oath,
the Sovereign bound himfelf to maintain, to the utmoft of
his power, the true profeffion of the Gofpel and the Pro
teftant reformed religion as by law eftablifhed within thefe
realms. Looking upon the fubje& in this light, I wifh to
put it to the noble lords who fit on the bench near me —
not in a tone of defiance (which would ill become me), nor
in the fpirit of defiance (which I hope does not belong to
me) — but calmly, and with a deep fenfe of its overwhelming
importance, I wifh to afk thofe noble lords whether they
can conceal from themfelves, on due confideration, that the

c c

386 The Bijhop of Exeter's Speech

plain, fimple, indifputable meaning of this oath, muft pre
vent the Sovereign from confenting to extinguifh the Pro-
teftant power, which is retained in the exifting Corporations
in Ireland. I put this, I fay, to the confideration of thofe
noble lords. But I muft beg leave to remind the Houfe
that Minifters are not the only refponfible perfons on this
occafion, I muft be permitted to remind your lordfhips that
each and every one of you is equally bound, not only not to
lend himfelf to a meafure of this fort, but not to aid in forcing
it upon the counfels of the Sovereign. If I fay this to the
Houfe at large, what muft I fay to my right rev. brethren in
particular ? Will they — will any man among them, if he
really thinks that I have fairly ftated the cafe — will he ven
ture to fan&ion, by his vote this night, fuch a meafure as
this before us ? I am fure that not one of my reverend
brethren will do fo. I am fure that, whatever pledges they
may have given, they will fee that no pledge can relieve
them from the folemn duty of protecting the Sovereign's
oath, and the interefts of the Proteftant Church. Having
had this matter brought before their minds — even in the
poor way in which it has been laid before them by myfelf —
if, after this, they fupport the bill, they will do fo, I am fure,
becaufe they do not fee the cafe, as I moft confcientioufly
avow that it is feen by me. Nothing, I am confident, could
prevail on them to vote for this bill, if they thought as I
think, that by voting for it they will facrifice one great
fecurity of the Proteftant caufe in Ireland. I have already
trefpafled at too great a length upon your lordfhips' time :
I haften, therefore, to conclude. My Lords, it is with no
ordinary feeling that I find myfelf fpeaking upon this fubjecl:
in this the moft auguft aflembly in the world — aye, I repeat
it, — in this the moft auguft aflembly in the world. Such
this Houfe for centuries has been — fuch it ftill is — fuch let
us hope it may long continue to be. God grant that it may:
for if it mould ever ceafe to be the moft auguft aflembly in
the world, it will become the moft degraded. And why,

" againft the Reform Bill. 387

my Lords, will this be ? becaufe, if this Houfe (hall fall from
its proud eminence, it will fall, not by violence, from with
out ; for, notwithftanding all that has been faid or done, the
people of this country will never be fo falfe to their own
interefts as to be wanting in refpe&ful attachment to you, if
you are not wanting to yourfelves and them. No, my
Lords, if this Houfe {hall fall from its palmy ftate it will fall
by corruption within. It will fall by the folly, or the guilt,
by the cowardice or the treachery of fome, if there fhall be
any fuch, of its own degenerate members. My Lords, it
has been ordained by a fevere but moft merciful difpenfation,
that thofe to whom great interefts are intruded cannot be
falfe to thofe interefts without drawing down a full meafure
of righteous retribution on their own heads. My Lords, to
you the guardianfhip of the Britifh Conftitution — that Con-
ftitution which, for at leaft 800 years has foftered, nurfed,
matured, and confolidated, the liberties and the happinefs of
this much favoured people — to you the guardianfhip of that
Conftitution has been mainly configned, to your fidelity, to
your prudence, to your firmnefs. My Lords, if it fall, you
will not only fall with it, but you will be ground to duft
beneath its ruins. May He Who has appointed you to your
high place enable you to fill it as you ought ! In this great
crifis (for fo we all feel it to be), in this agony of our
country's fate — may He give you wifdom to fee, and forti
tude to purfue, fteadily and fearlefsly, that only path which
can lead to honour or to fafety — the path of duty. True,
my Lords, that path is befet with difficulties and with dan
gers ; clouds and thickeft darknefs reft upon it ; but one thing
is clear, is right, and one thing only— to walk uprightly is
within your own power. As for confequences, they are in
the power of God. Will you diftruft that power ? My
Lords, you will not."

It was felt on all fides that this fpeech was a mafter-
piece of eloquence, and people were loud in its praife.

388 Publication of Parliamentary Debates.

Not the leaft remarkable part of it is the refiftlefs way
in which the bifhop turned back the cry of invafion of
rights, fo often raifed by the lower againft the higher
orders againft themfelves, when he fhowed the impor
tance of the publication of Parliamentary Debates,
which had been tacitly ceded. This is a compenfating
element in the Conftitution which has not always
received the attention which it deferves. It has grown,
however, with the growth of the country itfelf ; and,
upon the whole, its influence has been for good, for it
muft be admitted that in the communication of the
tranfactions of the Houfes of Parliament the editors of
public journals have ufually been guided by the ftricteft
impartiality. The publicity given to all queftions, and
efpecially to great meafures of finance, has in modern
times been the principal, if not the fole means of re
conciling the nation to a weight of taxes which might
otherwife have excited it to difcontent and even rebel
lion. Would it now be endured that the country
mould be deprived of that information which it is moft
alive to be pofTefTed of, and that it mould be kept in
ignorance of what Parliament was doing at the moft
critical moments of its exiftence ? And yet, great as is
the boon, people feem to have forgotten that it is a
boon, and have come to look upon it as a right. The
bifhop, therefore, deferves our thanks for ftating it as
an element to be confidered and weighed in fettling any
queftion of reprefentative reform.

But admirable as was this fpeech, it neverthelefs
afforded to the enemies of the bifhop an opportunity

Bifliop's Speech attacked by " Times" 389

of indulging their fpleen at his expenfe. The Times
in particular ( i jth of April) was at great pains to (how
that his argument drawn from the French Revolution
was unfound, and commented with feverity on the
rebuke adminiftered to Lord Harrowby for turning
round on the queftion of reform while truth flood
immoveable.

" It came," fays the writer, " with an ill grace from this
reverend perfonage, who ought to have remembered that on
the Catholic queftion truth was no lefs ftationary than with
regard to Reform, neverthelefs, there were thofe who at that
period did not ftand ftill upon the pedeftal of truth. Dr.
Phillpotts, for inftance, unlefs we are miftaken, fpun com
pletely round, and never ceafed from turning until he fettled
into a bifhop."

On the evening of the I3th the debate was refumed ;
and it was upon this occafion that Lord Durham, the
fon-in-law of the Premier, varied the monotony of the
previous proceedings by taking violent exception to a
remark which the bimop had made in the courfe of his
fpeech, to the effecT: that the Times breathed the infpi-
ration of the Treafury. Lord Durham aflumed that
he was the perfon pointed at, and referring to the
Bifhop of Exeter, exprefled himfelf with great vehe
mence, as follows : —

" If coarfe and virulent inve&ive — malignant and falfe in-
fmuations — the grofTeft perverfion of hiftorical fa&s — decked
out with all the choiceft flowers of his well-known pamphle
teering flang" —

Lord Winchilfea here rofe to order, defiring that his
lordfhip's words mould be taken down ; and after fome

390 Violent Language of Lord Durham.

difcuflion Lord Durham perfifted in maintaining that
" pamphleteering flang " were the only words which he
confidered could correctly defcribe the fpeech of the
bifhop ; a fomewhat forcible mode of expreflion, it
muft be admitted, when it is remembered to what
affembly it was addrefTed, and the office of the perfon
to whom it was intended to apply.

" As to the words * malignant and falfe infmuations,' '
the noble lord continued, " the rev. prelate in the courfe
of his harangue infmuated that fome of his Majefty's minif-
ters were unbecomingly conne&ed with the prefs. From
the terms in which that infmuation was couched, I could
have no doubt that he alluded to me. It would be grofs
affe&ation in me to deny it — the more efpecially as I had been
previoufly told by thofe who had read thofe papers that the
fame charge had been made againft me by name, in thofe
weekly publications which are fo notorious for their fcurrility
and indecency. When, therefore, I found that charge re
peated, in this Houfe, in terms which neither I, nor any man
living, could mifunderftand, I determined to take the earlieft
opportunity of ftating to your lordfhips that it was as falfe
as fcandalous. I now repeat that declaration, and paufe for
the purpofe of giving any noble lord an opportunity of taking
down my words."

After a fhort interval, Lord Durham proceeded to
enlarge upon the merits of the Reform Bill. At the
conclufion of his fpeech, Lord Carnarvon and the
Bifhop of Exeter rofe at the fame time, but there was
a general call for the latter to proceed; Lord Carnarvon
therefore fat down, and the bifhop of Exeter faid, —

" I have been charged, my Lords, by the noble baron,
with having made a malignant and falfe infmuation. I muft,

The Bifhop's Reply. 391

therefore, beg permiflion of your lordfhips to explain a part
of what I faid on a former night. As well as I can remember,
fpeaking of the Times newfpaper, I faid that I fuppofed it was
in fome way or other conne&ed with Government. The
exa& words I ufed are not prefent to my mind, but they were
fomething about certain articles, breathing the infpiration —
not of the Treafury, becaufe I acquitted the noble lord at
the head of it of any connection with the Times. (Laughter
from the Minifterial benches.) What I fay feems fport to
noble lords near me, and I hope it will not be thought a
very ferious matter to myfelf When I gave utterance to
what has been the fubje& of remark, I by no means meant
to fix upon any individual in particular ; but in my own mind
I did think that the rumours refpe&ing the noble baron
were not unlikely to be in fome degree true. (Some noble
lords here required the bifhop to fpeak out.) I will endea
vour to fpeak up, fo as to be heard, but it is my misfortune
not to have many friends near me, excepting the right rev.
friends by whom I am furrounded. The noble marquis
(Clanricarde, it was believed), if he has anything to fay,
ought to fpeak fo that I may anfwer him. I aflure the noble
baron that I was not anxious to prefs upon the notice of the
Houfe the particular part of my fpeech which he refers to.
I fpoke generally, becaufe, I fairly own, I had not evidence
beyond apparent probability. But while I did not wifh
directly to charge the noble baron, give me leave to fay, that
what I alluded to was not the only occafion on which there
has been an apparent connection between the Government
and the newfpapers. One inftance weighs with me more
ftrongly than it may with the noble marquis. About five or
fix weeks ago — ['order, order'] — a charge has been made
againft me, and, if not irregular, I wim to advert to it.
There was a ftatement in the Times newfpaper regarding a
correfpondence with the noble duke, whom I fee oppofite
(the Duke of Buckingham) — I hope he will forgive my
fpeaking of it in this way in his prefence ; and it is my earned

392 The Duke of Buckingham

hope that he will contradict me if I ftate what is untrue, and
correct me if I ftate what is improper. About the 23rd of
January, or fome fuch period, there was a direct allufion in
the Times to a fuppofed correfpondence between that noble
duke and his Majefty, as well as between a noble duke and
his Majefty's fecretary. The nature of the correfpondence
appeared to be ftated with fuch particularity, that, if it were
at all true, it feemed to me that the information muft have
gone to the newfpaper from fome perfon who had had accefs
to the correfpondence. It feemed to me alfo more probable
that it fhould have found its way to the public from fome mem
ber of his Majefty's Government, than from the noble duke.
Moft certainly, I have no hefitation in faying that it does ap
pear to me that it muft have gone to the newfpapers through
fome perfon who had accefs to the Government papers."

The Duke of Buckingham then rofe, and fully con
firmed the ftatement of the bifhop, faying that in his
capacity as a peer of the realm he had written the letter
referred to, and had tranfmitted it to the King through
his Majefty's fecretary, in the ufual and regular way.
He further ftated that he had given no one a copy of
that letter, and had only read it to two members of his
own family, to the Duke of Wellington, and to one
other perfon, and that part of this letter was inferted
verbatim in the 'Times newfpaper. This announce
ment was received with loud and repeated cheers from
the oppofition benches. Earl Grey rofe in the midft
of the tumult — for it was fcarcely lefs— and, after
waiting a fhort time for a hearing, exprefled his forrow
that the debate fhould have been interrupted by fuch
a difcufTion, He then went on to fay, in language
which M, Guizot, when fpeaking of his treatment

and his Letter to the King. 393

of Canning, has well characterized as " haughty and
contemptuous violence," that the fact, as ftated by the
Duke of Buckingham, was perfectly true. The King
had received the letter, and, acting as a conftitutional
monarch, had fent the letter to his minifter.

" I can fay, upon my honour as a peer," he continued,
" that I gave no copy. I certainly did communicate it to
my colleagues — it was my duty to do it 5 and I think I can
fay for them, as I aflert for myfelf, that it was not from
them, nor from any perfon connected with them, that any
part of the letter, any allufion to it, or abftract of it, found
its way into the public papers. No perfon was more afto-
nifhed than I was when I faw an allufion to it. I do not
know whether it is neceflary for me to fay more upon this
fubject ; but I can fafely fay that what was printed did not
proceed from his Majefty's advifers. As a perfon ftanding
in an oftenfible fituation in the Government, I difclaim any
connection with any one publication, and I moft diftinctly
deny that I have done anything to influence a fingle newf-
paper. But the right rev. prelate faid, on the former night,
that he had heard thefe things, and he believed them ; but if
I am miftaken, I beg his pardon."

The Bifhop of Exeter. — " I did not fay that I believed
them, but that they had been believed."

Earl Grey continued : — " That they have been believed.
(Great confufion j cries of * order' and 'fpoke.') I cer
tainly underftood the right rev. prelate to exprefs the impref-
fion on his own mind that there was truth in the charge.
He has undoubtedly faid that there were infmuations againft
other members of the King's Government, and he added
that he had heard a ftory of my noble friend near me (Lord
Durham). Now, mark the charity of the right rev. prelate
— I fay, mark his charity — mark what he does not think im
probable ! That my noble friend near me, connected with
me not only by the bonds of office, but by the neareft, deareft,

394 Exultation of Radical Prefs.

and clofeft ties of relationfhip, has been guilty not merely of
fraud, but falfehood, and has fecretly and infidioufly furnifhed
newfpapers with the means of attack upon the very Govern
ment of which he is a member. That this he was ready to
do, and actually did, at the expenfe of tearing afunder the
tendereft and deareft ties of affe&ion. If this be charity —
if this be the charity of a Chriftian bifhop, I am much de
ceived in the true nature of that virtue."

The Bifhop of Exeter then faid : —

" I rife only to explain. I never meant to charge the
noble baron with communicating any particulars to the
Times ; but I faid that there was an apparent general con
nection between that paper and the Miniftry. If a declara
tion of what was pafling in the inner mind be extorted from
it, it is a little too much to fay that I meant it for an infinu-
ation. I declared from the firft that I did not mean to
charge the noble baron with any particulars. Some of my
right rev. friends did not even think that I alluded at all to
the noble baron."

The Radical portion of the prefs were elated beyond
meafure at what they were pleafed to confider the
overthrow of the unpopular Bifhop of Exeter. The
Morning Chronicle founded a note of triumph in this
way : —

" In the early part of the evening the Bifhop of Exeter
was humbled to the duft. Lord Durham treated him as a
calumniator of the firft magnitude ; and the doughty prelate
fared ftill worfe, after his awkward attempt at explanation,
from a fevere caftigation from Earl Grey. It is much more
fafe to (lander in a Review, or anonymoufly, than in an
afiembly where the injured can defend themfelves."

But, in fpite of all this, and much more, there was
the letter, or, at all events, portions of it, fo like the

P rot eft againft 'Reform Bill. 395

original that Lord Grey himfelf could neither deny
the fimilarity, nor account for its appearance in the
Times. No parliamentary fkill could explain away
this ugly fact, or even tone it down. There it was,
and there it muft remain — a myftery. If the Minif-
ters had been put upon their trial for the publication
of the letter, it is certain that any jury would have
convicted them ; and far wifer would it have been if
they had allowed the bifhop's well-merited rebuke to
pafs in filence. They had much better not have ac
cepted his challenge. Facts were againft them, and
an ill-judged defire to clear up that which admitted
of no clearing up only threw out their conduct in
bolder relief. Every unprejudiced reader, looking at
the affair as a queftion of evidence, will feel convinced
that the bifhop had fufficient grounds for his affertion,
and that nothing which was faid in way of explanation
tended in the leaft degree to alleviate the fmart of the
lafh which he had fo feverely, but juftly, adminif-
tered.

After the fecond reading of the Reform Bill had
been carried, the Duke of Wellington entered a proteft
againft it on the journals of the Houfe. It was fub-
fequently figned by the Bifhop of Exeter, and feventy-
two peers, including the Royal Dukes of Cumberland
and Gloucefter.

It may be well thought that the ftrenuous oppofi-
tion of the bifhop to the Government meafure of
Reform did not increafe his popularity. Deep and
ominous were the murmurs which were heard in his

396 The Bi/hop of Exeter's Preaching.

own diocefe, while, in the county of Durham, his
effigy was publicly burnt with every demonftration of
contempt. But, bitter as was the feeling againft him,
the bifhop was not to be driven from the path of duty
by figns of popular difpleafure, however menacing.
He had not feared the angry peers, and he was not
likely to fear a difcontented people. Very fhortly
after the divifion upon the fecond reading of the
Reform Bill he fet out for Exeter, and arrived at his
palace on the Wednefday in Holy Week, April the
1 8th, and, having adminiftered the rite of Confirma
tion at Exmouth on the 21 ft, preached the next day
(Eafter Day) in the cathedral to an overflowing con
gregation. Even his enemies could find no fault
with his preaching ; and, if they were not conciliated
towards the man, they could not deny the rare abilities
of the preacher. Thofe who heard the bifhop in his
prime fay that there was a quiet dignity about his
eloquence which at once arrefted attention, and claimed
refpect, where the higheft efforts of a more florid orator
would have fallen powerlefs. Be this as it may, cer
tain it is that, in the later days of his life, there has
ever been a charm about his public addreffes againft
which it would be hopelefs to ftruggle.

Immediately after this the bifhop fet out on a con
firmation tour through the fouth of Devon, vifiting in
turn Dawlifh, Teignmouth, Torre, Paignton, Brix-
ham, Dartmouth, Harberton, Totnes, and Newton.
On the 29th of April he held an ordination at Exeter,
at which twelve deacons and thirteen priefts were

Confirmations. 397

ordained ; and on the following day he confirmed the
large number of 852 perfons in the cathedral. A few
days afterwards he left for London to attend Parlia
ment, confirming at Sidmouth and Axminfter on his
way.

398

CHAPTER XXIV.

Reform Meeting at Exeter. Three Groans for the Bijhop.
Violent Conduct of the People of Exeter. Mini/ferial Plan
of Education in Ireland. Uncompromiftng Oppofition of the
Bijhop. Lord Belkaverfs Petition. The Bijhop' s Remarks
upon it. Separation of Religious from Secular Inftruftion
denounced. Meaning of Moral Inftruflion. The Bijhop
attacked by the Lord Chancellor on the fubjett of the Duke of
Buckingham's Letter to the King. Explanations by the
Bijhop. Violent Language of Lord Grey. The Bijhop en
treats that the DifcuJJion may not be continued. He revives
it himfelf two days later. Imprudence of the Step. He
repeats his former Statement^ with further Explanations.
He maintains that Lord Grey under/food the Matter in the
fame way as himfelf. Returns to Exeter. Engages a Villa
at Teignmouth. Preaches at PVolborough.

I HE bimop had fcarcely reached London
when a large reform meeting was held at
Exeter, prefided over by the mayor, at
which three hearty groans were given for
his lordmip. This ebullition of feeling is to be afcribed
to the uncompromifing oppofition which he had mown
to "popular" meafures, and is, upon the whole, to be
regarded as an honour. The conduct of the enlight
ened citizens of Exeter upon this occafion foremado wed
their daring profanity in later days, when they fcrupled
not publicly to burn the fymbol of man's redemption
in front of the weft door of the cathedral, amidft the
plaudits of not a few of the inhabitants whofe wealth
had purchafed for them the title of refpedlable. The

Plan of Education in Ireland. 399

hifles and groans of fuch a multitude would ever be
more melodious to the ears of a good man than their
heartieft cheers.

The minifterial plan of education in Ireland ftill con
tinued to occupy as large a mare of public attention as
could be fpared from the all-abforbing quefton of reform.
Numerous petitions were prefented to Parliament
againft it, and the bifhop was ever in his place ready
to refill the progrefs of the meafure, and to expofe its
perilous character.

On May the 24th and June the 2nd the prefenta-
tion of petitions afforded him the opportunity of making
a few obfervations ; and on July the jrd, when Lord
Belhaven prefented a petition from the General AfTem-
bly of the Kirk of Scotland, ftating their approval of
the national plan of education adopted by the Govern
ment for the inftruction, as well religious as otherwife,
of the poorer clafTes of Ireland, both Proteftants and
Roman Catholics, the bifhop rofe and made fome
powerful remarks upon the unfatisfactory way in which
the petition had been drawn up, alleging that it had
been adopted in error, and did not do juftice to the
feelings of the General AfTembly. Speaking of the
propofal for feparating religious from fecular in-
ftruction, he denounced it as a tremendous fymptom of
the times, when a national fyftem of education could
be founded upon a plan of feparating the literary, and
even the moral, inftruction of the people from a know
ledge of their religious obligations. In his eflimation,
moral inftruction not only ought to impart a knowledge

400 'The Bijhop attacked by Lord Chancellor.

of every man's duty to his fellow-beings in this world,
but a deep feeling as well as a knowledge of his rela
tion to the Supreme Being, and of his hopes of a
future ftate. And could any fuch inftrudion be true, he
demanded, which was not founded upon the bads of
God's Word — upon the bails of the Will of the Su
preme Being ? And where could this be known if
inftructors would not look at the Word of God, with
which He had infpired the holy men of old ?

This debate was remarkable for an attack upon the
bifhop by the Lord Chancellor, who thought this a
fuitable opportunity for reviving the ftory of the Duke
of Buckingham's Letter to the King.* What this
had to do with the matter in hand it would be hard to
fay ; but it is a plain evidence of the uncomfortable
feelings which had taken pofleflion of the minifters,
and of their defire to clear themfelves from an irritat
ing imputation by heaping abufe upon an adverfary
who had proved too ftrong for them. Several peers
took part in the difcuffion which followed, and the
bifhop repeated what he had previoufly ftated, viz.
that he had never faid that he believed it himfelf, but
he had faid that it was believed by other perfons that
there was a connection between the Times and the
Government, and that the belief gave to the opinions
exprefled in that paper a peculiar weight. So little
was Lord Grey fatisfied with this ftatement, that he
immediately rofe and faid that cc all the venom went

* See page 392.

Difcujfion dropped and revived again. 40 1

forth with the thin veil which the right rev. Prelate
cautioufly fpread over it." He concluded by faying
that he felt only difguft at the time, and now he felt
nothing but contempt. It muft be confefled that this
is ftrong language — ftronger indeed than is ufually
applied to any member of the Epifcopal Bench —
ftronger probably than Lord Grey would have thought
it fafe to apply to a layman. But fome allowance
muft be made for heated feelings, and the unfatisfac-
tory pofition in which the Government was placed.
The Marquis of Salifbury called upon the Houfe to
take notice of the terms which had been ufed ; but
the bifhop entreated that the difcuflion might not be
purfued any further, exprefling his regret that he had
been the caufe of raiflng the excitement. Whether
his public life had been fuch as to juftify the expreflion
of contempt on the part of Lord Grey, he was con
tented to leave to thofe who had obferved his conduct.
He would fay nothing further than that he trufted to
his character to protect him againft fuch a remark.

This unfeemly difcuflion was then allowed to drop.

Two days afterwards, however (July the fth), it
was revived by the bifhop himfelf, who, on prefenting
a petition from the archdeacon and clergy of the Arch
deaconry of Totnes, againft the Government fyftem of
education in Ireland, took occafion to refer to the pro
ceedings of the recent debate, defiring, as he faid, to
fet himfelf right with the Houfe on a matter of fact.
Considering the ftate of feeling fo recently exhibited
by the prime minifter as well as by other members of

D D

402 "The Bijhop repeats Former Statement,

the Government on this irritating queftion, moft people
will think that it would have been prudent in the
bifhop not to have provoked further difcuflion, more
particularly as the matter was evidently beyond the
hope of amicable adjuftment. It feemed to him, how
ever, that his character required that certain explana
tions mould be made, and, therefore, in a manly and
ftraightforward way, he came forward to make them.
All muft admire his candour, though they may quef-
tion his tafle. He denied that he had ever ftated that
the letter of the Duke of Buckingham to the King
had been publimed in the Times. He merely ftated
that the letter in queftion had been alluded to in that
newfpaper. He underftood that his ftatement had
been publimed, and had excited confiderable difcufTion
in the newfpapers at the time ; but as he had, imme
diately after making it, gone into the country to attend
to the difcharge of his epifcopal duties, it fo happened
that he had not read any report of what he had then
faid, until within the laft few days, when, on referring
to the ordinary records, he found the following words
attributed to him on that occafion : —

" About the 23rd of January, or fome fuch period, there
was a dire& allufion in the Times to a fuppofed correfpon-
dence between the noble duke (Buckingham) whom I have
now the happinefs to fee in his place, and his Majefty,
as well as between a noble duke and his Majefty's fecre-
tary."

It appeared, therefore, he continued, that all he had
then faid was that there had been an allufion made in

with Further Explanations. 403

the Times to the noble duke's letter. It would feem,
indeed, from what then fell from the noble earl at the
head of his Majefty's Government (Earl Grey), that
the fame notion which he entertained was alfb paffing
through his lordfhip's mind, for he was reported to
have ufed the following words : —

" The noble duke gave no copy of it, and I can fay, upon
my honour as a peer, that I gave none. I certainly did
communicate it to my colleagues : it was my duty to do it ;
and I think I can fay for them, as I aflert for myfelf, that it
was not from them, nor from any perfon connected with
them, that any part of the letter, any allufion to it, or abftracl:
of it, found its way into the public papers. No perfon was
more aftonifhed than I was when I faw it. I do not know
whether it is necefTary for me to fay more upon this fubjecT:,
but I can fafely fay that what was printed did not proceed
from his Majefty's advifers."

It was plain from this, the bifhop argued, that Lord
Grey underftood the matter in the fame way that he
himfelf did at the time. From the noble earl's filence
it is to be prefumed that he thought it difcreet not
to enter into further controverfy with the bifhop, for,
after fome remarks by the Marquis of Londonderry
and Vifcount Melbourne, the fubjecl: was allowed to
drop.

A few days after this the bifhop returned to Exeter
(July the loth), confirming at Honiton on his way;
and a little later he proceeded to Teignmouth — an
attractive watering-place on the fouth coaft of Devon,
about fifteen miles from Exeter, where a pretty villa
had been engaged for his reception. On the laft

404 Preaches at Wolborough.

Sunday in the month he preached at Wolborough, near
Newton Abbott, on behalf of the National School, and
a very impreflive fermon was refponded to by a liberal
collection. While refiding at Teignmouth the living
of Pinhoe near Exeter fell to his gift, and he beftowed
it (2oth of July) on the Rev. Dacres Adams.

CHAPTER XXV.

Appearance of the Cholera in Exeter. Difgraceful Condition of
the Principal Cemetery. The Order in Council for providing
Special Burial-grounds not applicable to Exeter. Offer of a
Field on S. David's Hill for Interment of Cholera Patients.
Diffatisfatfion of the Parijhioners. Shocking Scene at a
Funeral. Committee appointed to feleft a fuitable Spot.
The Bijhop applied to for his Licence. His Reply. Much
Time loft. The Bijhop unjuftly blamed for the Delay. Bury
Meadow appropriated as a Cholera Burying- ground. The
Bijhop grants his Licence. A Day for Prayer and Humilia
tion appointed. Special Service at the Cathedral. The
Cholera abates. A Day appointed for Thankfgiving. The
Bijhop preaches at the Cathedral. Meeting at the Guildhall
to prefent a Teftimonial to the Medical Men. The Bijhop
propofes the Resolutions. His high Praife of the Conduct of
the Medical Men. Cenfured for having been abjent from
Exeter during Ravages of the Cholera. His Abfence ex
plained.

[HE cholera, which had been devaftating
other parts of England, broke out in
Exeter on the I9th of July (1831). Its
| appearance found the good city unprepared
to receive it, and great was the confternation when it
became known that the plague had actually begun.
The principal cemetery had long been a difgrace to
the municipal authorities, being in clofe proximity to
a crowded part of the town, and furrounded with
houfes. It was totally incapable of anfwering the de
mands which were about to be made upon it. An
Order in Council had empowered parimes to provide

406 Application to the Bijhopfor

private burial-grounds for thofe who died of cholera,
but unfortunately this could not be made applicable to
Exeter. Towards the end of July a remonftrance
was addrefled to the Board of Health againft any fur
ther burials taking place in the cemetery (Bartholomew
Yard). Meanwhile the corporation of the poor had
generoufly offered a portion of Bury Meadow for the
burial of cholera patients. This was a field fituate on
S. David's Hill, and tolerably remote from any dwell
ing- houfe. But if the reft of the city were fatisfied
with this arrangement, the parimioners of S. David's
were not difpofed fo eafily to acquiefce. It was bring
ing the peftilence too near to their own doors, they
thought ; and fo when a corpfe was about to be in
terred there they rofe in tumult and prevented the
burial. The fexton took to his heels, and a ftrong
party remained clofe at hand during the night to refift
any further attempt at interment.

The felection of an appropriate {pot for burials then
became a ferious queftion. A cemetery committee
was appointed, and after examining various iites they
came to the conclufion that no fpot was fo favourable
as Bury Meadow. To enable the clergy to perform
funerals there it was neceflary that it mould be licenfed
by the bifhop. A deputation was therefore appointed
to wait upon his lordfhip ; to which he returned the
following reply : —

" Brideftowe, i2th Auguft, 1832.

" The Bifliop of Exeter having this day received a com
munication from the Mayor of Exeter, in perfon, as chair-

a Licence, and his Reply. 407

man of the Board of Health, attended by Mr. Pearfe, a
member of the Board, and by Mr. Dymond, with a plan of
the ground propofed to be affigned as a cemetery for the in
terment of the bodies of perfons who have died of cholera,
has given immediate attention to the circumftances of the
cafe, and has no difficulty or hefitation in faying that, fup-
pofing thefe circumftances to have been accurately reprefented
in the plan and meafurements fubmitted to him, he will have
real gratification in granting his licence for the purpofe.

" The circumftances which have induced him to come to
this decifion are, that no footpath traverfes the piece of land
propofed ; that, on the contrary, the path, at the neareft
point, is diftant 180 or 2OO feet, or thereabouts; that only
one houfe is in the neighbourhood, and that at a diftance of
more than 500 feet ; that S. David's Church is at about the
fame diftance ; that the land may be approached by a road of
little traffic, and not actually contiguous to it, but nearly 100
feet diftant from it.

" If thefe particulars are as defcribed, the place feems to
the bifhop as little liable to reafonable objection as can be
hoped. He will, therefore, grant his licence, unlefs thefe
particulars be difproved, or other objections of real weight
ftated, which do not occur to his mind at prefent.

" His neceffary abfence from Exeter, and his frequent
change of ftation in the courfe of the next few days,* will
caufe delay in preparing the inftruments and fubmitting them
for his fignature. Meanwhile, he cannot wifh the ufe of the
ground to be delayed. Thofe, therefore, of the clergy of
Exeter whofe pariftiioners may need their fervice on this
melancholy occafion, will not incur any cenfure from him if
they immediately bury corpfes in this ground, unlefs they
are fatisfied that the facts of the cafe are not fuch as have
been ftated above.

" The bifhop depends on the mayor having the good-

* He was on a Confirmation tour.

408 Bury Meadow a Cholera Burying-ground.

nefs to make an immediate communication of the contents
of this paper to the minifter and churchwardens of S.
David's, in order that an immediate opportunity may be af
forded to them to ftate any objections, or make any obfer-
vations, which they may wifh, before the licence iflues.
The movements of the biftiop may be known by confulting
the paragraphs of the newfpapers, which ftate his route.
He purpofes being at Teignmouth on Thurfday evening
the i6th inftant."

A comparifon of the date of this letter with the
breaking out of the peftilence in Exeter (i9th July)
will fhow that much valuable time had been loft.
Meanwhile, the ftate of the cemetery had become ap
palling. It was moft ungenerous and unjuftifiable,
however, to faften the blame of this delay upon the
bifliop, as a portion of the prefs endeavoured to do.
As foon as the application was made to him he re-
fponded to it. And what more could he do ? If the
inhabitants of Exeter were fo little alive to their own
interefts as to fpend a whole month in quarrelling
over the felection of a burial-ground, while the cholera
was raging with fearful violence among them, the
fault was all their own, and they had no right to
complain if they paid the penalty of their procrafti-
nation.

A few days after the receipt of the bifhop's letter
Bury Meadow was appropriated by the corporation of
the poor to be a cholera burying-ground for ten years
from the date of the laft interment. The parifhioners
of S. David's were ftill diflatisfied with the arrange
ment, and a deputation was appointed to wait upon

Day for Prayer and Humiliation. 409

the bifhop, in the hope that he might be induced to
withhold his licence. It was plain, however, that
their complaints were frivolous, and that fimilar ob
jections might be raifed againft nearly every other
fpot of land in the neighbourhood of the town ; the
bifhop, therefore, caufed his licence to ifTue on the
iyth of Auguft.

Meanwhile the peftilence was increafing in violence ;
drunkennefs and the moft revolting profligacy among
the poorer clafTes only too furely preparing its way.
It was under circumftances of almofl univerfal defola-
tion, when men's hearts were failing them for fear, that
Wednefday, Auguft the 22nd, was appointed for fpecial
prayer and humiliation. The bifhop was abfent from
the city, but he arrived the evening previoufly, and
after attending the fpecial fervice at the cathedral in
the morning, left Exeter to refume his Confirmation
tour.

Never, within the memory of the oldeft inhabitant,
had a Sunday been kept with greater ftridnefs than
the day appointed to fupplicate God to remove His
plague from a repentant people. All worldly bufi-
nefs was, as far as pofTible, fufpended. The churches
were open morning and evening, and were thronged
with devout worfhippers. The mayor and chamber
attended the fpecial fervice at the cathedral, when an
appropriate and impreflive fermon was preached by
the Rev. Dr. Barnes, Archdeacon of Barnftaple, from
Ifaiah li. 12, 13.

About the middle of September the peftilence began

4 1 o Day of Thankf giving.

to abate, and, on the fuggeftion of the bifliop, Thurf-
day, October the i ith, was fet apart for the purpofe of
thanking God for removing it from Exeter. The
day was obferved with great folemnity. Bufinefs was
fufpended ; public houfes were clofed ; churches were
thrown open morning and evening, and a fpecial ier-
vice was held in the cathedral, at which the mayor
and chamber were prefent, when the bimop preached
from 2 Sam. xxiv. 14 and following. Shortly after
this it was determined to offer to the medical gentle
men of the city a tribute of gratitude, in token of the
high value fet upon their fervices during this trying
emergency. A public meeting was accordingly held
in the Guildhall, the 22nd of October, the mayor in
the chair, for the purpofe of taking the matter into
confideration.

The bifhop, it appears, had not been informed that
the meeting was convened, and only received intelli
gence of it half an hour before it aflembled. Deter
mined, however, not to be wanting upon fuch an oc-
cafion he haftened to the Guildhall, and arrived in
time to propofe fome refolutions, which were unani-
moufly adopted. In the courfe of his fpeech he paid
the following well-deferved tribute to the zeal and
energy of the medical men : —

" It is well known that when the fearful difeafe firft
made its appearance in this city, the laudable exertions of
the medical pra&itioners were met, from the effe& of un
happy prejudice,by the moft inveterate hoftility on the part of
the poorer clafes 5 but this unfounded feeling they afterwards
deeply lamented, and they will now be enabled, as I am

Praife of the Medical Men. 41 1

fure they are moft eager to do, to add their teftimony to
that of their fellow-citizens, of the deep fenfe they entertain
of the fmgular (kill, as well as great attention difplayed on
a moft trying occafion by our eftimable medical practitioners.
When the difeafe firft exhibited itfelf in this city, it found
us, from its new and formidable character, furrounded with
many difficulties, calculated to excite great fear and appre-
henfion ; but the medical gentlemen found the means at
once of oppofmg, in a great degree, all the tremendoufly
perplexing circumftances with which we were encompafled.
Such indeed was their perfevering devotion to the caufe of
fuftering humanity, that they did not leave their poft, by
day or night, fo that by their admirable arrangements, no
matter what might be the hour, or in what part of the city,
whenever an individual, however poor and deftitute might
be his or her condition, was attacked with the fymptoms of
the deftru&ive malady, a fldlful, able, and affe&ionate at
tendant was, in a very fhort fpace of time, at hand to render
all the affiftance which human aid could minifter ; and it
muft be confidered, that, under the bleffing of Divine Pro
vidence, we owe to the fkill and ability difplayed in the fuc-
cefsful treatment of the difeafe., and to the efficient plan
adopted for its fpeedy application, the happy ceflation of
the malady among us. If, then, this city has ever been
diftinguifhed for medical fcience, it is not now the lefs dif-
tinguifhed by the talents of the members of that honourable
profeffion refiding within this city, who, without any hope,
in numberlefs cafes, of receiving even the miferable fees to
which they are by right entitled, have by overworking the
energies of their bodies, as well as the powers of their minds,
fucceeded in arrefting, under Providence, the progrefs of a
difeafe which threatened no one can tell what extent of de-
ftru&ion ; and although we cannot look for a perpetual
ceflation of the difeafe amongft us, we have the confolation
of knowing that, mould it again appear within our city, it
will be met with the fame fkill and perfeverance, and with
the bleffing of Providence be again fubdued. I really feel

412 Explanation of the Bijhop's Abfence

that I am doing great injuftice to the caufe I have taken in
hand ; but I truft this will, in fome meafure, be attributed to
the very mort period of time that has elapfed fmce I firft
became acquainted with your intention of meeting. At the
fame time I feel aflured that no language I could have ufed
would have done anything like juftice to the (kill and difm-
terefted devotion of the medical gentlemen, or -by any means
adequately expreffed the feelings of the public on this occa-
fion. I will not detain you longer, but beg at once to
move the Refolutions."

But while the biihop was extolling the conduct of
the medical men, his detractors were loud in cenfur-
ing his own. Why had he quitted his cathedral city,
they afked, at a feafon of fuch unprecedented fadnefs ?
Why had he not given the clergy the comfort of his
prefence in the difcharge of their trying and perilous
duties ? It is true enough that the bifhop was abfent from
Exeter, with the exception of two or three hurried
vifits, during the whole time in which the plague was
raging, and thus a kind of colour was given to thefe
complaints. But he was not confulting for his own
fafety, or feeking his own convenience, much lefs was
he flying from duty ; and they who attribute fear to
him can know little of thofe iron nerves which the
prefence of no danger has been ftrong enough to make.
The truth is, he was abfent on a Confirmation tour,
planned fome time previoufly, the due completion of
which was of paramount importance to the various
parifhes which he defigned to vifit. No thought,
therefore, of danger or perfonal inconvenience could
induce him to change his plan. While his family,
then, were in comparative fafety in the pleafant water-

during the Ravages of Cholera. 413

ing place of Teignmouth, the bifliop was traverfing
his diocefe from parifh to parifh, confirming the
younger members of his flock, and mowing that the
prefence even of the cholera itfelf was in his judgment
no bar to their receiving the means of grace.

4'4

CHAPTER XXVI.

Confirmation Tour. Confecration of Bedford Chapel. The
Bijhop' s Letter to the Mayor on the £>uejlion ofpojlponing
it. The Bijhop prefents to a Living by " lapfe." Remarks
on it. The Precentorjhip of Exeter Cathedral. Further
Promotion of the Bijhop' s Son. The Bijhop and his Family
return to Exeter from Teignmouth. Anniverfary of Society
for Propagating the Gofpel in Foreign Parts. Ordination.
Clofe of the Second Tear of Epifcopate.

HE Confirmation tour referred to in the
laft chapter commenced on Auguft the
6th, and continued until the 1 6th of the
fame month. It was renewed on Sep
tember the i ft, and terminated on the I5th.

At intervals during this time the bifhop paid mort
vifits to Exeter; upon one occafion for the confecration
of Bedford chapel, a hideous building which had recently
been creeled. It had been arranged that it mould be
confecrated on Auguft the 4th ; but as the cholera was
then raging in the city, the bifhop was doubtful about
the propriety of proceeding with the ceremony, for
reafons which are affigned by his lordfhip in the follow
ing letter to the mayor (William Kennaway, Efq.) : —

"Dear Sir, "Teignmouth, 2 Auguft, 1832.

" Under the peculiar circumftances of the time, when it has
pleafed God to fend the cholera into our city, I feel it my
duty to communicate with you before I finally refolve on

Confe oration of Bedford Chapel 4 1 5

performing a ceremony which may draw a large concourfe
of people together, and fo may endanger the further propa
gation of the diforder. I allude to the intended confec ration
of the new church in Bedford Circus. If you, under the
advice of the Medical Board, wifli that the ceremony mould
be deferred, I mail certainly comply. In faying this, I aflure
you that I have no perfonal apprehenfion, nor do I myfelf
forefee any greater danger than from a large congregation at
church on an ordinary occaflon, unlefs it be probable that
there will be a confluence of perfons from the infected parts
of the place. If there be not the probability of danger, I
would greatly prefer letting the fervice proceed as was in
tended.

" Your faithful Servant,

" The Right Worfliipful " H. EXETER.

the Mayor of Exeter/'

The bifhop's letter was duly confidered ; and it having
been intimated that no rifk of a confluence of perfons
from infected parts was to be anticipated, his lordmip
came to Exeter and confecrated the chapel on Auguft
the 4th, and after the fervice immediately left for
Teignmouth.

On the iyth of this month (Auguft), he prefented
the Rev. Robert Gee to the vicarage of Paignton,
near Torquay. This was by lapfe. It will be necef-
fary to explain the principle of " lapfe," and the ufe to
which it has been turned by the bifhop. And this is
the more imperative fince his conduct, in this particular,
has been the fubject of fevere and very extenfive
animadversion. Inftead, however, of entering upon
the queftion in this place it is thought more convenient
to poftpone it till the cafe of a living comes under

4 1 6 Further Promotion of the Bijhop's Son.

confideration which was the fubject of protracted liti
gation, and which furnifhed occafion for bitter remark.
The various inftances in which the bifhop has availed
himfelf of a cc lapfe " to prefent to benefices will then
be examined.

The Confirmation tour being ended, the bimop re
turned to Exeter, and immediately afterwards left foi
Teignmouth, where his family were ftill ftaying.

The precentorfhip of the cathedral having become
vacant by the death of the Rev. Thomas Bartlam, the
bifhop conferred it on the Rev. Thomas Hill Lowe
(afterwards Dean of Exeter), and at the fame time
collated him to a prebendal ftall in the cathedral.
This gentleman had hitherto held the vicarage of
Grimley, with the chapel of Hallow annexed, in the
diocefe of Worcester ; a comfortable piece of prefer
ment, which he refigned on being promoted to cathe
dral honours in Exeter, and to which the bimop's
fon, the Rev. John Phillpotts, of whom mention has
been made already,* was collated. The Rev. Uriah
Tonkin was prefented by the bimop to the living of
Uny, vacated by his fon, Mr. Phillpotts.

Early in October the bifhop and his family returned
to Exeter, where he continued in refidence at the
palace for feveral weeks. On the 25th of that month
the anniverfary of the Society for Propagating the
Gofpel in Foreign Parts, and the Society for Pro
moting Chriftian Knowledge, was held. The civic

* See page 325.

Clofe of Second Tear's Epifcopate. 4 1 7

authorities walked in proceffion to the cathedral, and,
after an impreffive fermon by the bifhop from Matt,
xxiv. 14, a collection was made, amounting to 74/.
After fervice there was the ufual meeting at the Guild
hall, the bifhop in the chair ; but the proceedings
were of the ordinary character, and require no notice.

On the 28th of October— ftill in difregard of the
Ember Seafon — an Ordination was held in the cathe
dral, at which nine deacons and fourteen priefts were
ordained.

The next two months were fpent by the bifhop in
the general work of fuperintending his diocefe. He
frequently preached in the churches of Exeter and
the neighbourhood, and his difcourfes were invariably
liftened to by a reverent and refpectful congregation.
Nothing worthy of record occurs to mark the clofe of
the fecond year of his epifcopate ; but the year that
was opening was deftined to be an eventful one.

E E

4i8

APPENDIX.
A.

Chronological Lift of the Bijhops of Exeter.

A.D.

1050. Leofric.

1073. Ofbern, or Ofbert.

1 107. William Warelwaft.

1138. Robert Chichefter.

1 155. Robert Warelwaft — nephew to William, the third

Bifhop.

1 1 6 1 . Bartholomew.

1186. John.

1194. Henry Marfhall.

1214. Simon de Apulia.

1224. William Briwere, or Bruere.

1245. Richard Blondy.

1258. Walter Bronefcombe.

1280. Peter Quivil.

1292, Thomas de Bytton.

1308. Walter de Stapledon.

1327. James Barkley.

1327. John de Grandiflbn.

1370. Thomas de Brantyngham.

1395. Edmund Stafford.

1419. John Catterick.

1420. Edmund Lacy.
1458. George Nevylle.
1465. John Bothe.
1478. Peter Courtenay.

Bijhops of Exeter. 4 1 9

1487. Richard Fox.

1493. Oliver King.

1495. Richard Redmayne.

1502. John Arundell.

1504. Hugh Oldham.

1519. John Veyfey. (Deprived 1551.)

1551. Myles Coverdale.

1553. Jonn Veyfey. (Reftored.)

1555. James Turberville.

1560. William Alley.

1571. William Bradbridge.

1578. John Woolton.

1595. Gervafe Babington.

1598. William Cotton.

1621. Valentine Gary.

1627. Jofeph Hall.

1642. Ralph Brownrigg.

1660. John Gauden.

1662. SethWard.

1667. Anthony Sparrow.

1676. Thomas Lamplugh.

1688. Jonathan Trelawney.

1707. Offspring Blackall.

1716. Lancelot Blackburn.

1724. Stephen Wefton.

1742. Nicholas Clagett.

1746. George Lavington.

1763. Frederick Keppel.

1778. John Rofs.

1792. William Buller.

1797. Henry Reginald Courtenay.

1803. John Fifher.

1807. George Pelham.

1820. William Carey.

1830. Chriftopher Bethell.

1831. Henry Phillpotts.

420 Oath to the Pope taken by

It occafionally happened that fome time elapfed between
the death or tranflation of a bifhop and the appointment of
a fucceflbr. It cannot, therefore, always be afcertained
with accuracy from the figures how long the epifcopate of
each lafted.

It is worthy of remark that, of the fixty bifliops of Exeter,
only three have filled the epifcopal chair for a longer period
than the prefent occupant, viz : — John de Grandiflbn, who
was confecrated in 1327 and died in 1369, having been bifhop
for forty-two years ; Edmund Lacy, who was tranflated from
Hereford in 1420 and died in 1455, having been bifhop for
thirty-five years ; and John Veyfey, who was confecrated in
1519, and was deprived in 1551, after an epifcopate of
thirty-two years. He was reftored in 1553, and died the
following year, having been bifhop for thirty-three years,
not including the time during which he was deprived.

B,

Oath to the Pope taken by Roman Catholic Prelates.

" I, N. N., Archbifhop or Bifhop of the Church N., will
henceforward be faithful and obedient to S. Peter the
Apoftle, and the Holy Roman Catholic Church, and to our
Lord N. Pope, and his fucceflbrs canonically inftituted. I
will not in counfel, in confent, or in deed, be acceflbry to
their lofing life or limb : or that they be taken by wrongful
caption ; or violent hands, in any fort, be laid upon them ;
or any injuries inflicted, under any pretence whatever.
Moreover, the counfel which they fhall entruft to me by
themfelves, or by their Nuncios, or by letters, I will not
difclofe to any one to their lofs knowingly. The Roman
Papacy and the Royalties of S. Peter I will aflift them to
retain and defend (faho meo ordine) againft every man. The
Legate of the Apoftolic See, in his journeys to and fro, I

Roman Catholic Prelates. 42 1

will honourably entertain, and will aflift in all his needs.
The rights, the honors, privileges, and authority of the
Holy Roman Church, of our Lord the Pope, and of his
fucceflbrs aforefaid, I will take care to preferve, defend,
augment, and promote. Neither will I be in counfel, nor
in a&, or enterprife, in which any things be devifed againft
the fame our Lord, or the fame the Church, hurtful or pre
judicial to their perfons, right, honor, ftate, or power. And
if I (hall know any fuch things treated of, or prepared, I
will hinder it, to the beft of my power ; and, as foon as I
can, will ilgnify it to the fame our Lord, or to fome other
by whom it may come to his knowledge. The rules of the
Holy Fathers, decrees, ordinances, or difpofitions, referva-
tions, provifions, and mandates apoftolic, I will obferve
with all my might, and will make to be obferved by others.
When called to a Synod I will come, unlefs I (hall be pre
vented by a canonical impediment. The apoftolic refidence
I will vifit myfelf in perfon every ten years ; and to our
Lord and his fucceflbrs aforefaid will render account con
cerning my paftoral office, and concerning all things to the
ftate of my church, to the difcipline of my clergy and people,
appertaining ; and the mandates Apoftolic given thereupon
I will humbly receive, and with all diligence perform. But
if by any legitimate impediment I (hall be detained, all the
things aforefaid I will fulfil by a fure meflenger, having
fpecial commiflion for that purpofe, out of the bofom of my
chapter, or another placed in a dignity ecclefiaftical, or
otherwife having a parfonage, or, in defect of thefe, by a
diocefan prieft ; and if there be no clergy, by fome fecular
or regular Prefbyter of tried probity and religion, fully in-
ftru&ed concerning all the things aforefaid. But, refpe&ing
the impediment aforefaid, I will give lawful proofs, to be
tranfmitted through my faid meflenger to the Cardinal of
the Holy Roman Church, prefect of the congregation De
propaganda Fide. Moreover, the pofleflions to my table
appertaining I will not fell, nor give, nor pledge, nor put

422 Oath impofed

in feoffage anew, or in any way alienate, even under the
confent of the chapter of my church, without firft confulting
the Roman Pontiff. Thefe things all and feverally I will
the more inviolably obferve, the more aflured I am that
nothing is contained therein which can conflict with my
due fidelity towards the moft ferene King of Great Britain
and Ireland, and the fucceflbrs to his throne. So help me
God, and thefe Holy Gofpels of God.

"So do I, N. N., Archbifhop or Bifhop of the Church
N., promife and engage."

C.

Oath to be taken by 3 James I. c. 4. s. 18.

"I, A. B., do truly and fmcerely acknowledge, profefs,
teftify, and declare in my confcience before God and the
world, that our Sovereign Lord King James is lawful and
rightful King of this realm, and of all other His Majefty's
dominions and countries ; and that the Pope, neither of
himfelf, nor by any authority of the Church or See of Rome,
or by any other means, with any other, hath any power or
authority to depofe the King, or to difpofe of any of his Ma
jefty's kingdoms or dominions, or to authorize any foreign
prince to invade or annoy him or his countries, or to dif-
charge any of his fubje&s of their allegiance and obedience
to his Majefty, or to give licence or leave to any of them to
bear arms, raife tumults, or to offer any violence or hurt to
His Majefty's royal perfon, ftate, or government, or to any
of His Majefty's fubje&s within his dominions. And I do
fwear from my heart, that, notwithftanding any declaration
or fentence of excommunication or deprivation made or
granted, or to be made or granted, by the Pope or his fuc
ceflbrs, or any authority derived or pretended to be derived
from him or his fee againft the faid King, his heirs or fuc
ceflbrs, or any abfolution of the faid fubje&s from their obe-

by King James I. 423

dience, I will bear faith and true allegiance to His Majefty,
his heirs and fucceffors, and him and them will defend, to
the uttermoft of my power, againft all confpiracies and at
tempts whatfoever which {hall be made againft his or their
perfons, their Crown and dignity, by reafon or colour of any
fuch fentence or declaration, or otherwife, and will do my
beft endeavour to difclofe and make known to His Majefty,
his heirs and fucceffors, all treafons and traitorous confpi
racies, which I fliall know or hear of to be againft him or
any of them. And I do further fwear that I do from my
heart abhor, deteft, and abjure, as impious and heretical,
this damnable do&rine and pofition, that Princes, which be
excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, may be depofed
or murdered by their fubjecls, or any other whatfoever.

" And I do believe, and in my confcience am refolved,
that neither the Pope, nor any other perfon whatfoever,
hath power to abfolve me of this oath, or any part thereof,
which I acknowledge by good and full authority to be law
fully miniftered unto me, and do renounce all pardons and
difpenfations to the contrary.

<c And all thefe things I do plainly and fmcerely acknow
ledge and fwear, according to thefe exprefs words by me
fpoken, and according to the plain and common fenfe and
underftanding of the fame words, without any equivocation
or mental evafion, or fecret refervation whatfoever ; and I
do make this recognition and acknowledgment, heartily,
willingly, and truly, upon the true faith of a Chriftian.

"So help me God.'*

END OF VOL. I.

CHISWICK PRESS : — PRINTED BY WHITTINGHAM AND WILKINS,
TOOKS COURT, CHANCERY LANE.

'FS